Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 25.
Published in final edited form as: J Child Sex Abus. 2024 Jul 30;34(5-6):682–696. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2024.2385468

Preliminary Evaluation of the SafeBAE Youth-Developed Sexual Violence Prevention Summit

Prachi H Bhuptani 1, Shael Norris 2, Lindsay M Orchowski 3
PMCID: PMC11779968  NIHMSID: NIHMS2013516  PMID: 39081011

Abstract

The current study evaluates a single-day youth-designed sexual assault prevention summit for adolescents. Attendees (N = 284) completed pre-and post-summit surveys addressing 1) confidence in consent knowledge; 2) perceived capability to respond to someone who was assaulted or harassed; 3) awareness of Title IX rights; 4) perceived capacity to get help for a survivor; 5) perceived acceptability of sexual coercion; 6) endorsement of belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it starts; 7) perceived seriousness of sharing nude photos without permission; and, 8) perceived prevalence of false accusations of sexual violence. At post-summit, participants reported increased perceived confidence in consent knowledge, increased perceived capacity to respond to a survivor, increased awareness of Title IX rights, and increased perceived capacity to get help for a survivor. Both perceived acceptability of sexual coercion and endorsement of the belief that someone should not stop sexual activity decreased at post-summit. Findings provide preliminary support for a youth-developed sexual assault prevention summit.

Keywords: sexual violence, adolescents, opinion leaders, prevention

Sexual violence is a serious public health problem, especially for adolescents (Basile et al., 2020; Basile et al., 2022). According to the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 10.8% of US high school students reported experiencing sexual violence (Basile et al., 2020). Nationally representative data from adults indicates that 43.2% of women and 51.3% of men who had been raped were first raped before the age of 18 years, suggesting that victimization often begins during adolescence (Smith et al., 2017). Sexual violence is associated with multiple consequences including physical health, mental health, and academic consequences (Dworkin, 2020; Molstad et al., 2023). Given the prevalence and consequences of sexual violence among adolescents, it is imperative to develop, evaluate, and implement sexual violence prevention programs among youth.

A growing number of studies report on the design and evaluation of sexual violence prevention programs for adolescents. The most extensively developed and evaluated violence prevention program for adolescents is the 10-session high school curriculum, Safe Dates, which focuses on fostering healthy dating and sexual relationships among adolescents (Foshee et al., 1998; Foshee et al., 2004). Studies suggest that Safe Dates is associated with increases in conflict management skills, knowledge of resources, and attitudes towards dating violence that are maintained at the 1-year follow-up (Foshee et al., 1998; Foshee et al., 2000). Several other sexual assault prevention programs such as Green Dot (Coker et al., 2017), Bringing in the Bystander (Edwards et al., 2019), Dating Matters (DeGue et al., 2021), FourthR (Temple et al., 2021), Coaching Boys into Men (Miller et al., 2020), and Your Voice Your View (Orchowski et al., 2023) have also been evaluated among high school students. These programs evidence both direct and indirect impacts on rates of sexual violence by changing intermediate outcomes like violence-supporting attitudes and bystander intervention skills (Coker et al., 2017; Edwards et al., 2019; DeGue et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2020; Orchowski et al., 2023; Temple et al., 2021). Problematically, despite the growth of sexual assault prevention approaches developed and tested for high school youth, rates of sexual violence in this population have yet to decline and in some cases, are increasing (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021).

Several researchers and prevention scientists have explored reasons why rates of sexual violence have shown little decline among adolescents. Notably, the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence II found that adolescents (age 15-17) who were exposed to violence prevention programs were less likely than younger children to describe violence prevention programs as helpful, and also reported learning very little new information (Finkelhor et al., 2014). Although speculative, it is possible that the limited impact and perceived utility of sexual assault prevention programs for high school youth is driven by the lack of youth engagement in the design and delivery of such approaches. Specifically, Yeager and colleagues (2015) suggest that traditional, adult-delivered prevention programs contradict adolescents’ increasing desire for autonomy and influence of their peers. Edwards and colleagues (2016) also note that traditional violence prevention efforts designed and implemented by adults for adolescents may be ineffective due to adolescents’ natural resistance against the influence of adults, interference of the manualized curriculum with adolescent’s autonomy. Involving adolescents in the design of sexual assault prevention programs is one potential solution for ensuring that programming incorporates sufficient peer-engagement and are designed to meet adolescents’ interests and needs. Problematically, numerous scholars have commented on the problematic absence of youth engagement in the development of sexual assault prevention programming (Chan et al., 2016; Cody & D’Arcy, 2019; Edwards et al., 2016; Weisz & Black, 2009).

In contrast to programming efforts designed and implemented by adults, the Whole School Approach to sexual violence prevention emphasizes the importance of placing students at the core of violence prevention efforts (McMahon et al., 2021). Such an approach involves recognizing that students are not only the recipients of programs and services but should be engaged as partners and critical contributors as (Griebler et al., 2017; Morse & Allensworth, 2015). Student engagement in prevention may involve encouraging genuine participation where students have an influence over decisions and activities, and be critical contributors in the design, development, and delivery of prevention program materials (Edwards et al., 2016; Storer et al., 2017). Notably, researchers in the area of risky substance use prevention efforts have found that adolescent-led efforts are more effective than adult-led efforts (Cuijpers, 2002; Mellanby et al., 2000). Support for youth-developed and youth-led sexual assault prevention programs is also emerging. Specifically, in an evaluation of Youth Violences in Prevention (VIP), Edwards et al (2023) describe how knowledge from youth and adults on advisory boards was used to foster co-creation and implementation of informal conversations, social media posts, and community events focused on sexual violence prevention. This work included the engagement of peer opinion leaders in ways to spread messaging about social norms, bystander intervention and healthy relationships, and data suggested positive outcomes in bystander behavior among youth exposed to the programming compared to those not exposed to the programming (see Banyard et al., 2022; Edwards, Banyard et al., 2022). The promising work of Edwards and her colleagues in centering youth in the design and delivery of violence prevention programs highlights the importance of further evaluation of sexual assault prevention approaches driven by youth voices.

SafeBAE is currently the only survivor-founded, student-led national organization working to prevent sexual violence exclusively among middle and high school students in the United States. SafeBAE focuses on providing middle school and high school students opportunities and skills to become peer-to-peer advocates of sexual harassment and assault prevention, affirmative consent, safe bystander intervention, survivor care, and Title IX education; while also providing school staff with trauma-informed response training, curriculum, policy reform guidance, and resources to reduce recidivism. In 2019, SafeBAE brought together students to implement a one-day peer-led violence prevention summit designed to bring together youth to learn about consent, healthy relationships, and bystander intervention skills. The purpose of the current study is to document the effectiveness of the 2019 SafeBAE youth summit on fostering change in youth confidence in their knowledge about consent, knowledge of how to best support survivors of sexual victimization, and attitudes related to sexual violence.

The summit followed the principles of diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 2002; Rogers et al., 2014; Valente & Davis, 1999) and aimed to convene a youth summit where youth would be trained as popular opinion leaders to diffuse the prevention of sexual violence. The diffusion of innovation theory suggests attitudes and behavior change in a community can be initiated and maintained if key opinion leaders within that community visibly adopt, endorse, and support behaviors and attitudes. This is especially relevant in sexual violence prevention efforts as prior research highlights peer influence on violence-related risk behaviors. For example, high school students who had friends with more prosocial beliefs demonstrated a lower risk for dating violence throughout adolescence compared to those who had friends with less prosocial beliefs (Foshee et al., 2013). Similarly, young men are more supportive of sexual violence prevention efforts when they perceive their peers to be also supportive of such efforts (Stein, 2007).

Purpose of the Current Study

The current study evaluated the impact of the SafeBAE youth-organized summit on sexual violence related knowledge, awareness, and skills among youth. We hypothesized that the summit would lead to increased confidence in knowledge relating to consent, increased perceived capability to respond to someone who was assaulted or harassed, increased awareness of Title IX rights, increased perceived capacity to get help for someone who was assaulted or harassed, decreased perceived acceptability of sexual coercion, decreased endorsement of the belief that it is wrong for someone to stop sexual activity once it starts, increased perceived seriousness of sharing nude photos without permission, and decreased perceived prevalence of false accusations of sexual violence.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants for the summit were recruited from 15 school districts, across 5 Northeastern states. The summit was directed towards high school students; however, younger, and older adolescents who learned of the event through contacts with peers and word-of-mouth were also permitted to attend. A total of 284 participants attended the summit and 270 completed the pre-summit evaluation. A sample of 90 participants completed the post-summit evaluation. The majority of participants self-identified as White (65.8%, n = 187), followed by Black (4.2%, n = 12), Multiracial (3.52%, n = 10), and Asian or Pacific Islander (1.76%, n = 5). The remaining 70 participants (24.64%) did not report their race. Over half of the participants self-identified as women (51.04%, n = 146), followed by men (30.98%, n = 88), and gender minority (1.75%, n = 5). Whereas 1.4% of participants chose “prefer not to say” (n= 4) when asked to choose their gender identity, 14.44% of participants (n = 41) did not report on their gender identity.

The summit was held during a school day and students received various giveaways and prizes during attendance. The full-day summit consisted of a series of 12 1-hour seminars, led by youth, members of community organizations, as well as experts and advocates in healthy relationship development and consent. The summit speakers and topic were planned by a committee of ten men and women student leaders and advocates, who were brought together by SafeBAE. Adolescents who engaged in the summit attended with an adult chaperone from their school who were engaged in programming relating to integrating consent education into their classroom structures. The topics covered in the summit are outlined in Table 1. The summit included large group presentations, smaller breakout plenaries, as well as student actions/interactions throughout the day. The day culminated with a call to action for all attendees to take what they have learned throughout the day and become active bystanders and sexual assault/harassment prevention advocates in their schools moving forward. Participants were also given the tools and resources to continue the conversations in their schools. The learning objectives of the summit are outlined in Table 2.

Table 1.

Summit Schedule

Presenter Topics Covered
Community organization A presentation on sharing of intimate images and online safety
Community organization A presentation about the intersections of consent and substances
University department A presentation about ways to integrate violence prevention programming into their classrooms and best practices in adult allyship
Community organization A presentation on affirmative and enthusiastic consent
Community organization A presentation on empowerment self-defense
Co-founders of SafeBAE A focused conversation about dating after experiencing sexual violence
Two men-identifying athletes and co-founders of SafeBAE Discussion on how men can participate in anti-violence prevention, positive masculinity, and bystander intervention
Community organization Speaking about local sex trafficking prevention programming and identifying risk factors and support among peers
Community organization Speaking about peer empowerment of women-identified students in culture change and prevention activism
Community organization A performance based on real life consent scenarios
Community organization A session on student rights under Title IX
Community organization A session about campus safety and student activism in college
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Learning Objectives for Summit Attendees

Learning objectives for students who attend this summit • Define and recognize consent, as it relates to sexual and other interpersonal interactions.
• Identify their boundaries and how to be comfortable in maintaining them.
• Ask for consent in a way that is not coercive.
• Identify a situation that may escalate to sexual assault, how to be an active bystander, non-confrontational ways to intervene (BAEstander!)
• Empathize with and better respond to survivors of sexual violence.
• Access resources for themselves or friends who have been impacted by sexual violence (national and local)
• Contribute to changing the culture of their school/community with better practices around consent, bystander intervention, and general rape culture.
• Understand how “rape culture” and gender roles impact consent
Learning objectives for adults/mentors who attend this summit • Define and help students recognize consent, as it relates to sexual and other interpersonal interactions.
• Empathize with survivors of sexual violence
• Access local and national resources for themselves, friends, or students/youth, who have been impacted by sexual violence.
• Help students apply communication skills that build understanding of their needs in relationships and that express their boundaries.
• Understand how “rape culture” and gender roles impact consent.
• Communicate more comfortably and directly with youth about sex, sexuality, and consent (or help them get to the people whom they are more comfortable with)
Open in a new tab

Advertisements for the summit were delivered via email announcements from the school district, or social media postings produced by SafeBAE on Facebook and Instagram. The summit was advertised as an opportunity to learn about healthy relationships and sexual consent. Participants completed the pre-summit survey at the time of program registration via an online portal. Participants created their own login information for the online portal to protect their privacy. Survey data was not connected to the summit participant’s name. Measures were selected for inclusion in the pre-and post-summit surveys due to their alignment with program outcomes. Given that incentives for research participation were limited to a single raffle, efforts were taken to limit the length of the survey to boost voluntary completion of the survey. Items were similar across the pre-and post-summit surveys to examine change in constructs over time. Participants also completed the post-summit survey via the online portal, approximately four weeks following the summit. Participants who completed the post-summit survey were entered into a raffle for $100 USD. All surveys were voluntary. Institutional Review Board approval was garnered to analyze the pre-and post-summit survey data.

Measures

Perceived Confidence in Knowledge of Consent

An item was developed to assess the impact of the training on youth’s confidence in knowledge relating to consent. Participants were asked: “Do you think you know everything you need to know about giving and receiving consent?” Participants were asked to respond on a 4-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (no) to 4 (definitely).

Capacity to Respond to and Support Survivors of Sexual Victimization

Participants completed three items relevant to supporting survivors of sexual victimization. Items addressed: a) perceived personal capacity to respond to someone who was assaulted or harassed; b) awareness of rights provided by Title IX law; and c) perceived capacity to get help for someone who was assaulted or harassed. Specifically, to assess perceived capability to respond to someone who was assaulted or harassed, participants were asked “Do you know how to best support & respond to someone who shares that they have been assaulted or harassed?” Regarding knowledge about Title IX laws, participants were asked: “Do you know anything about your rights in school under the federal law Title IX?” Relating perceived capability to get help for someone who was assaulted or harassed, participants were asked “Do you know where to get help for someone who has been raped, harassed, or assaulted?” For each item, participants responded on a 4-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (no) to 4 (definitely). Each item was examined separately in analyses. Higher scores on items reflected greater awareness of rights and capacity to support survivors.

Attitudes Relating to Sexual Violence

Participants completed a series of questions addressing attitudes towards sexual violence. Items addressed the domains of a) perceived acceptability of sexual coercion; b) endorsement of belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it starts; c) perceived seriousness of sharing nude photos without permission; and d) perceived prevalence of false accusations of sexual violence. The item assessing perceived acceptability of sexual coercion stated: “Do you think it’s okay to try to convince someone to have sex, if they seem unsure?” The item addressing the participant’s endorsement of belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it starts asked: ‘Do you think once someone starts hooking up with someone, it’s wrong of them to stop?” We anticipated that a successful program would lead to lower scores on this item, such that there would be less support for the belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it starts. The item addressing the perceived seriousness of sharing nude photos without permission asked: “Do you think sharing someone’s nudes without their permission is a big deal?” We hypothesized a successful program would result in higher scores on this item, such that participants would be more likely to rate sharing nude images without permission as a big deal. The item addressing beliefs about the prevalence of false accusations stated: “Do you think a lot of people lie about being raped or assaulted?” Participants provided answers along a 4-point rating scale ranging from 1 (no) to 4 (definitely). Each item was analyzed separately.

Data Analysis Plan

Analyses were conducted in SPSS v29. Data was checked for normality and missingness. Non-normal data were log-transformed. Given that participants’ data was not matched at pre-summit and post-summit, examination of summit effects was limited to between-subjects effects (i.e., examining overall group differences in pre-and post-summit responses). Then, a series of independent sample t-tests were conducted to examine differences in pre-and post-program reports on knowledge about the following domains: 1)confidence in knowledge relating to consent; 2) perceived capability to respond to someone who was assaulted or harassed; 3) awareness of rights provided by Title IX; 4) perceived capacity to get help for someone who was assaulted or harassed; 5) perceived acceptability of sexual coercion; 6) endorsement of belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it starts; 7) perceived seriousness of sharing nude photos without permission; and, 8) perceived prevalence of false accusations of sexual violence.

Results

Descriptive statistics, Skewness and Kurtosis

Means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis values of all variables are noted in Table 3. Two items were log transformed, given they were skewed and kurtotic (i.e., perceived acceptability of sexual coercion; perceived seriousness of sharing nude photos without permission). In the table, for interpretability means and standard deviations of non-transformed variables are presented, and the test statistics generated from using transformed variables are presented. Missing data was not imputed and any valid responses provided for survey items were considered for inclusion in the analysis.

Table 3.

Pre- and Post-Summit Comparisons

Variable Pre-Program Mean (SD) (N=270) Post-Program Mean (SD) (N= 90) Skewness (Kurtosis) t p Cohen’s d
Do you think you know everything you need to know about giving and receiving consent? 2.89 (.88) 3.71 (.68) −.87 (.04) 9.27 <.001 .98
Do you know how to best support and respond to someone who shares that they have been assaulted or harassed? 2.75 (.70) 3.67 (.56) −.33 (−.46) 12.47 <.001 1.22
Do you know anything about your rights in school under the federal law Title IX? 1.97 (.83) 2.82 (.95) .35 (−.78) 7.52 <.001 .98
Do you know where to get help for someone who has been raped, harassed, or assaulted? 2.85 (.93) 3.64 (.67) −.75 (−.30) 8.72 <.001 .91
*Do you think it’s okay to try to convince someone to have sex, if they seem unsure? 1.10 (.10) 1.01 (.03) 5.61 (32.79) 2.91 .004 .23
*Do you think once someone starts hooking up with someone, it’s wrong of them to stop? 1.24 (.09) 1.07 (.15) 3.04 (8.50) 2.95 .003 .28
*Do you think sharing someone’s nudes without their permission is a big deal? 3.89 (.06) 3.94 (.06) −4.67 (24.08) .82 .42 .10
Do you think a lot of people lie about being raped or assaulted? 2.72 (1.12) 2.43 (1.34) −.18 (−1.48) 1.81 .07 .24
Open in a new tab

Note. Equality of variances were not assumed.

*

Variables were log transformed

Independent Samples T-Test

Results from independent samples t-tests indicated that individuals at post-test reported significantly greater levels of confidence in knowledge relating to consent, perceived capability to respond to someone who was assaulted or harassed, awareness of rights provided by Title IX, and perceived capacity to get help for someone who was assaulted or harassed compared to individuals at pre-test. Changes in attitudes relating to sexual violence were also revealed post-summit. Specifically, over time, participants reported lower perceived acceptability of sexual coercion and lower endorsement of the belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it starts compared to individuals at pre-test. All effects were in the hypothesized directions. Levels of perceived seriousness of sharing nude photos without permission and perceived prevalence of false accusations of sexual violence were not significantly different pre-and post-summit.

Discussion

The current study evaluated pre-and post-summit differences in outcomes relating to a youth-led summit addressing sexual violence prevention. Though preliminary, the current evaluation provides an example of the value of engaging youth in the development of sexual assault prevention efforts for their peers. Youth-designed summits on sexual violence prevention are an under-utilized approach for engaging youth in sexual violence prevention efforts (see Edwards et al., 2023), and greater research documenting the utility of this approach is warranted.

Several positive findings were revealed. As hypothesized, youth at post-summit reported significantly greater levels of confidence in knowledge relating to consent, perceived capability to respond to someone who was assaulted or harassed, awareness of rights provided by Title IX, and perceived capacity to get help for someone who was assaulted or harassed compared to youth at pre-summit. The results are notable in the light of findings from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence II which reported that adolescents exposed to violence prevention programs noted that the information had little utility for them (Finkelhor et al., 2014). Engaging youth in the design of sexual assault prevention programs can be a useful strategy for ensuring that curricula are designed to meet the needs of the end users. Such an approach is consistent with Edwards et al (2016) call to elevate youth voices across all aspects of the process of developing and implementing sexual violence prevention programming

Results also indicated that participation in the summit led to a change in some attitudes related to sexual violence among participants from pre-to post-summit. Over time, participants reported lower perceived acceptability of sexual coercion and lower endorsement of the belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it starts compared to participants at pre-summit. Although the current study did not include assessments of behavioral outcomes, such as engagement in sexual aggression, these findings are nonetheless useful in tracking the preliminary promise of the summit in shifting some beliefs and perceptions among participants. Attitudes related to sexual violence are also associated with the perpetration of violence among adolescent boys and girls (Ybarra & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2019).

Two study outcomes did not reveal change over time among participants: perceived seriousness of sharing nudes without permission and perceived prevalence of false accusations related to sexual violence. More research – such as qualitative interviews with program participants – would be needed to understand why the program may not show promise in shifting these outcomes. The summit evaluated in the present study was limited to a single day, and it is feasible that the dose of programming was insufficient to shift these outcomes. More work in the field may also be needed to better understand strategies for changing beliefs about sharing nude images. The prevention strategy typically utilized by prevention programs around the issue of cyber sexual violence – including the act of creating and sending nude images – has been to discourage youth from making and sharing such images (Finkelhor et al., 2021). Programs often seek to accomplish this goal by highlighting the consequences of creating nude images such as the inability to control their usage, their impact on possible future opportunities (e.g., college or job), and possible subject to prosecution. Further work to evaluate the impact of such messaging is needed, especially as traditional fear-based and adult warnings about risky behaviors have not proven to be effective, even after adolescents become aware of the risks (Livingstone & Smith, 2014).

Limitation and Future Directions

This research presents a preliminary evaluation of a youth-designed sexual violence prevention approach, facilitated by youth and adults via a one-day summit that brought together high school youth and teens from the local region. Results of pre-and post-summit surveys highlight the impact of the summit impact in increasing confidence in knowledge about consent, perceived capabilities in how to respond to and support survivors, knowledge of Title IX rights, perceived acceptability of sexual coercion, and enforcement of the belief that it is wrong to stop sexual activity once it stops. Despite these promising findings, data should be interpreted in the context of several important limitations.

First, study assessments were limited in scope and length. Given the limited availability of study incentives, emphasis was placed on using a brief assessment that aligned with the core content of the summit, which participants might be open to completing voluntarily. As a result, the survey assessment was brief, and the study survey did not measure the impact of the summit on behavioral outcomes (i.e., perpetration and victimization). There are now numerous validated assessments that can be utilized to evaluate sexual assault prevention efforts, and future research should incorporate a more rigorous survey battery that draws upon these measures. Future research should also evaluate behavioral outcomes and include formal assessments of knowledge that move beyond youth’s own self-perceptions. Given the limitations of the study assessments, the current study should be considered a preliminary evaluation of this program, with a more rigorous evaluation warranted in future research.

It should also be noted that the survey did not include a robust assessment of other individual-level variables, such as prior history of sexual victimization, relationship status, or socioeconomic status. These variables were omitted to reduce participant burden in completing the voluntary program evaluation measures. Inclusion of these individual-level variables in the survey assessment would nonetheless allow for a more rigorous assessment of the characteristics of youth who participated in the summit (i.e., did certain groups of students self-select to participate in a summit?) as well as whether the summit was more impactful for some youth as opposed to others. Measures could also be incorporated to allow for analysis of the potential for social desirability to influence the study findings.

Second, the use of a pre-and post-test design that did not include a control condition must be considered as a limitation of this work, and an area for future enhancement. Because the present study evaluated a single administration of the summit within one region of the United States, a control group was not feasible. Although it may not be feasible to randomize youth to participate or not participate in a community-based prevention activity, such as a summit, a larger evaluation of multiple youth-developed summits across several regions could utilize a quasi-experimental design, and lead to a more robust test of the impact of this approach. Further, post-summit surveys were administered voluntarily to attendees via an online portal approximately 4-weeks following the program, which is a relatively short follow-up period. Confidence in study findings would be bolstered by following participants over time to determine whether the effects of the study last over a longer follow-up period. Given that participants’ data was not matched at pre-summit and post-summit, the current study also limited its examination to between subjects (i.e., examining overall group differences in pre-and post-summit responses).

Third, it should be noted that there was attrition in the sample between the pre-summit evaluation and post-summit evaluation. Although speculative, the lack of implementation of an incentive for all participants to complete the survey may have contributed to attrition at follow-up. The sample size also precluded examination of differences in program effects via race, gender, or sexual orientation, and it was not possible to examine program effects by school districts. Future inquiries should be targeted toward the investigation of identity-related differences in program effects as well as multilevel modeling of program effects where students are nested within school districts. It would also be beneficial to examine how the summit might be offered to schools, to ensure school-wide participation in the event, rather than self-selected enrollment.

Conclusion

The current study evaluated the effectiveness of youth-planned and facilitated summit on sexual violence prevention. Results indicated that the summit was associated with change at post-test in several relevant outcomes relating to confidence in knowledge about consent, responding and supporting survivors of violence, rights pertaining to Title IX, perceived acceptability of sexual coercion, and endorsement of the belief that it is wrong for someone to stop sexual activity once they start it. The present study adds to the growing discussion of the value of including youth voices in the development of sexual assault prevention programs.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Bhuptani’s effort on this publication was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse Award Number K99DA057993 (PI: Bhuptani).

Footnotes

Disclosure of Interest. Prachi H. Bhuptani, PhD, and Lindsay M. Orchowski, PhD declare that they have no conflicts to report. Shael Norris is the co-founder and executive director of SafeBAE and was not involved in data analysis.

Ethical Standards and Informed Consent. The current data was collected as a part of program evaluation within the SafeBAE organization. The data was collected for quality improvement purposes, and responses were anonymous. It was deemed at a later date that it would be useful to share the quality improvement data with the public, and IRB approval was garnered for reporting the anonymous survey responses via a research report.

Contributor Information

Prachi H. Bhuptani, Department of Adult Psychiatry, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA

Shael Norris, SafeBAE, USA.

Lindsay M. Orchowski, Department of Adult Psychiatry, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

References

  1. Basile KC, Clayton HB, DeGue S, Gilford JW, Vagi KJ, Suarez NA, Zwald ML, & Lowry R (2020). Interpersonal violence victimization among high school students—youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2019. MMWR supplements, 69(1), 28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Basile KC, Smith SG, Kresnow M. j., Khatiwada S, & Leemis RW (2022). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2016/2017 report on sexual violence. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chan WY, Hollingsworth MA, Espelage DL, & Mitchell KJ (2016). Preventing violence in context: The importance of culture for implementing systemic change. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 22. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cody C, & D’Arcy K (2019). Involving Young People Affected by Sexual Violence in Efforts to Prevent Sexual Violence in Europe: What is Required? Child Care in Practice, 25(2), 200–214. 10.1080/13575279.2017.1391749 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Coker AL, Bush HM, Cook-Craig PG, DeGue SA, Clear ER, Brancato CJ, Fisher BS, & Recktenwald EA (2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 566–578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook-Craig PG, Coker AL, Clear ER, Garcia LS, Bush HM, Brancato CJ, Williams CM, & Fisher BS (2014). Challenge and opportunity in evaluating a diffusion-based active bystanding prevention program: Green dot in high schools. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1179–1202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cuijpers P (2002). Peer-Led and Adult-Led School Drug Prevention: A Meta-Analytic Comparison. Journal of Drug Education, 32(2), 107–119. 10.2190/lpn9-kbdc-hpvb-jptm [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dearing JW (2009). Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention development. Research on social work practice, 19(5), 503–518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. DeGue S, Niolon PH, Estefan LF, Tracy AJ, Le VD, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Little TD, Latzman NE, Tharp A, & Lang KM (2021). Effects of Dating Matters® on sexual violence and sexual harassment outcomes among middle school youth: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 22, 175–185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dworkin ER (2020). Risk for Mental Disorders Associated With Sexual Assault: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 1011–1028. 10.1177/1524838018813198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Edwards KM, Banyard VL, Sessarego SN, Waterman EA, Mitchell KJ, & Chang H (2019). Evaluation of a bystander-focused interpersonal violence prevention program with high school students. Prevention Science, 20, 488–498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Edwards KM, Banyard VL, Waterman EA, Simon B, Hopfauf S, Mitchell KJ, Jones LM, Mercer Kollar LM, & Valente TW (2023). Diffusion effects of a sexual violence prevention program leveraging youth-adult partnerships. Am J Community Psychol, 71(3-4), 344–354. 10.1002/ajcp.12645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Edwards KM, Jones LM, Mitchell KJ, Hagler MA, & Roberts LT (2016). Building on youth’s strengths: A call to include adolescents in developing, implementing, and evaluating violence prevention programs. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 15. [Google Scholar]
  14. Finkelhor D, Vanderminden J, Turner H, Shattuck A, & Hamby S (2014). Youth exposure to violence prevention programs in a national sample. Child abuse & neglect, 38(4), 677–686. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Finkelhor D, Walsh K, Jones L, Mitchell K, & Collier A (2021). Youth internet safety education: Aligning programs with the evidence base. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1233–1247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Arriaga XB, Helms RW, Koch GG, & Linder GF (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American journal of public health, 88(1), 45–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Ennett ST, Linder GF, 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. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Greene WF, Koch GG, Linder GF, & MacDougall JE (2000). The Safe Dates program: 1-year follow-up results. American journal of public health, 90(10), 1619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Reyes HLM, Ennett ST, Faris R, Chang L-Y, Hussong A, & Suchindran CM (2013). The peer context and the development of the perpetration of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 471–486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Griebler U, Rojatz D, Simovska V, & Forster R (2017). Effects of student participation in school health promotion: a systematic review. Health promotion international, 32(2), 195–206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kelly JA (2004). Popular opinion leaders and HIV prevention peer education: resolving discrepant findings, and implications for the development of effective community programmes. AIDS care, 16(2), 139–150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kelly JA, St Lawrence JS, Diaz YE, Stevenson LY, Hauth AC, Brasfield TL, Kalichman SC, Smith JE, & Andrew ME (1991). HIV risk behavior reduction following intervention with key opinion leaders of population: an experimental analysis. American journal of public health, 81(2), 168–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Livingstone S, & Smith PK (2014). Annual research review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: The nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 55(6), 635–654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. McMahon S, Steiner JJ, Snyder S, & Banyard VL (2021). Comprehensive Prevention of Campus Sexual Violence: Expanding Who Is Invited to the Table. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(4), 843–855. 10.1177/1524838019883275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mellanby AR, Rees JB, & Tripp JH (2000). Peer-led and adult-led school health education: a critical review of available comparative research. Health education research, 15(5), 533–545. 10.1093/her/15.5.533 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Miller E, Jones KA, Ripper L, Paglisotti T, Mulbah P, & Abebe KZ (2020). An athletic coach–delivered middle school gender violence prevention program: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA pediatrics, 174(3), 241–249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Molstad TD, Weinhardt JM, & Jones R (2023). Sexual assault as a contributor to academic outcomes in university: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(1), 218–230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Morse LL, & Allensworth DD (2015). Placing students at the center: The whole school, whole community, whole child model. Journal of school health, 85(11), 785–794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Orchowski LM, Malone S, Sokolovsky AW, Pearlman DN, Rizzo C, Zlotnick C, Berkowitz A, & Fortson BL (2023). Preventing sexual violence among high school students through norms correction and bystander intervention: A school-based cluster trial of Your Voice Your View. Journal of Community Psychology. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Rogers EM (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive behaviors, 27(6), 989–993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rogers EM, Singhal A, & Quinlan MM (2014). Diffusion of innovations. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 432–448). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  32. Smith SG, Basile KC, Gilbert LK, Merrick MT, Patel N, Walling M, & Jain A (2017). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report.
  33. Starmann E, Heise L, Kyegombe N, Devries K, Abramsky T, Michau L, Musuya T, Watts C, & Collumbien M (2018). Examining diffusion to understand the how of SASA!, a violence against women and HIV prevention intervention in Uganda. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stein JL (2007). Peer educators and close friends as predictors of male college students’ willingness to prevent rape. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 75–89. [Google Scholar]
  35. Storer HL, Casey EA, & Herrenkohl TI (2017). Developing “whole school” bystander interventions: The role of school-settings in influencing adolescents responses to dating violence and bullying. Children and youth services review, 74, 87–95. [Google Scholar]
  36. Temple JR, Baumler E, Wood L, Thiel M, Peskin M, & Torres E (2021). A dating violence prevention program for middle school youth: a cluster randomized trial. Pediatrics, 148(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Tilbury C, Struthers K, & Parmenter N (2019). Young people as agents of change in preventing violence against women. Research report. [Google Scholar]
  38. Valente TW, & Davis RL (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 55–67. [Google Scholar]
  39. Valente TW, Hoffman BR, Ritt-Olson A, Lichtman K, & Johnson CA (2003). Effects of a social-network method for group assignment strategies on peer-led tobacco prevention programs in schools. American journal of public health, 93(11), 1837–1843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Warthe DG, Kostouros P, Carter-Snell C, & Tutty LM (2013). Stepping Up: A peer-to-peer dating violence prevention project on a post-secondary campus. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 4(1), 100–118. [Google Scholar]
  41. Weisz AN, & Black BM (2009). Programs to reduce teen dating violence and sexual assault: Perspectives on what works. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ybarra ML, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling J (2019). Linkages between violence-associated attitudes and psychological, physical, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization among male and female adolescents. Aggress Behav, 45(6), 622–634. 10.1002/ab.21856 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Yeager DS, Fong CJ, Lee HY, & Espelage DL (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36–51. 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES