Awareness about sexual violence has grown over time, sparked in part by the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and continuing more recently as victims share their stories and garner more media and public attention. Funding for programs to protect victims and hold individuals accountable for their crimes has also increased during this same timeframe1. However, focus on how to prevent sexual violence has lagged.
Research demonstrates that sexual abuse and assault can have lifelong impacts on the emotional and physical well-being of the victim and their family,2 and justice is often elusive.3 There is also a substantial financial cost. Research estimates that the lifetime cost of rape is $122,461 per individual harmed. This equates to a population economic burden of almost $3.1 trillion, based on estimates that more than 25 million U.S. adults have been victims of rape.4 Investments in prevention could not only increase public safety but also realize significant cost savings.5
Efforts to prevent sexual violence generally consist of three approaches: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary approaches aim to prevent individuals from initially committing a crime and causing harm or engaging in a specific behavior. They focus on reducing the opportunity to commit crimes in certain situations and places.6 Secondary prevention includes immediate responses to a crime, and tertiary prevention includes long-term responses to those who have committed crimes.7 Criminal justice has traditionally relied on secondary and tertiary prevention strategies, but primary prevention has gained traction more recently.
Crime prevention must challenge the assumption that a given strategy will work equally well for various individuals committing disparate crimes. Crime is diverse and complex, and different strategies are needed depending on the type of crime, the person who commits the crime, and the context of the crime. Given this diversity, traditional law enforcement and criminal justice approaches cannot be the only strategies to safeguard communities.8 Primary prevention strategies are useful for crime prevention but cannot stop crime alone.9 Comprehensive crime prevention should include both strategies to prevent criminal behavior and effective responses after crimes have occurred. Ideally, prevention and response strategies need an individualized approach focused on the types of crimes, the people who commit these crimes, and the communities in which the crimes occur.
Brandon Welsh and David Farrington describe two prevention concepts that have emerged:
- Situational crime prevention recognizes that many crimes are contextual or opportunistic in nature.10 The goal is to decrease the opportunities to commit a crime through systemic (rather than individual) strategies. In the context of sexual assault, situational crime prevention could be helpful in examining “the immediate behavioral setting to identify factors that encourage or permit sexual abuse.”11
- Developmental crime prevention aims to prevent the development of criminal behaviors in individuals, particularly children and youth.12 The approach focuses on known risk and protective factors related to sexual abuse perpetration for individuals in a particular context, such as a family or school.
Criminal justice practitioners have used both approaches to prevent sexual violence. This article discusses recent research applying situational and developmental crime prevention and describes promising programs that use these frameworks to prevent sexual violence.
Situational Crime Prevention
Situational crime prevention involves examining the various situations — conditions, locations, circumstances, or policies — associated with specific criminal opportunities. The theory, which holds that most crime is opportunistic, puts forth that people can be deterred from criminal activity by increasing their perception of the difficulty of execution and the risk of apprehension and reducing the perceived rewards associated with the crime.
Instead of focusing on individuals, situational crime prevention looks at the surrounding environments — social, cultural, and physical. It assumes that the immediate environment is not just a passive backdrop but instead plays a fundamental role in shaping behaviors.13 For example, some situational crime prevention techniques specific to preventing sexual assault at colleges and universities include:
- Removing or limiting access to potential targets by offering free transportation on college and university campuses after dark.
- Controlling disinhibitors of violence (for example, limiting alcohol sales near campuses or increasing alcohol prices).
- Increasing natural and formal surveillance (for example, ensuring streets are well-lit and installing clearly visible security cameras).
- Raising public awareness through posters and educational programs.
Situational crime prevention is used in youth organizations, schools, and sports organizations to prevent sexual violence.14 In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidance for youth-serving organizations on policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse.15 The guidance went beyond individual behaviors to include organizational and community responsibility. Limited but promising research has shown that structural, environmental, and policy strategies have the potential to significantly reduce sexual violence perpetration in youth-serving organizations.16 By focusing on environments, policies, and high-risk situations, situational prevention can mitigate the factors that encourage (or fail to inhibit) sexual violence. In fact, John Eck and Rob Guerette found that situational strategies were effective in preventing crime in recreational settings.17 These results suggest the benefits of wider situational crime prevention.
Keith Kaufman and colleagues discovered that situational prevention is relevant for organizations that work with children, adolescents, and young adults — where the actions and responses by peers and adults have the most influence.18 For example, when the Boys & Girls Clubs of America wanted to identify sexual abuse risks specifically in a youth-serving organizational setting, clubs using the situational prevention approach were able to identify seven to 10 times more environmental risks than control clubs doing business as usual.19
Another example is Shifting Boundaries,20 a school-based dating violence prevention program21 that has been designated as a promising evidence-based practice.22 In the Shifting Boundaries program, 30 middle schools in New York City randomly received one of four interventions:
- A six-session curriculum focused on gender roles, healthy relationships, and the consequences of perpetration.
- A building-level intervention that included temporary school-based restraining orders23 and increased levels of faculty and security presence.
- Both the curriculum and building-level interventions.
- No intervention at all.
For the building-level intervention, students identified and mapped safe and unsafe areas of the school and grounds. Schools placed more faculty and security in the unsafe areas and used posters to increase awareness and information about reporting. The group with only the building-level intervention had the best results, with a 47% reduction in peer physical and sexual violence in the six months following the intervention.24
Many college and university intervention programs have focused on affecting individual attitudes. According to one meta-analysis, fewer than 10% of school- or college-based programs examine organizational norms or policies that may hold more promise.25 Some institutions of higher education have recently adopted situational prevention approaches26 that explore situational factors, such as risky situations, routine activities that may heighten risk, environmental factors, and policy limitations.27 For example, alcohol use is a risk factor for sexual misconduct and victimization. Researchers examined the impact of alcohol policies on behavior, demonstrating that pricing, sale time, outlet density, barroom management, and policies banning alcohol on campus can limit access to alcohol.28 However, despite the evidence that a situational approach to prevention is effective, such programs remain rare on campuses.29
Sports organizations have also used the situational prevention approach. Following high-profile cases of sexual abuse in U.S. Olympic sports, the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established to develop abuse prevention policies and resources.30 SafeSport’s efforts include applying a situational prevention approach to this highly competitive sports context31 with the goal of tailoring it to the culture, practices, and needs of elite athletes. From May 2019 to March 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) funded a project in which 20 Olympic, Paralympic, and younger elite development teams used the sport situational prevention approach.32 The project included surveying 177 athletes, 89 sports coaches and staff, and 75 athletes’ parents. An evaluation found that all three stakeholder groups reported high levels of satisfaction with the program, on average, across 15 different indicators (satisfaction indicators included: (1) satisfied that “important risks were brought up” during the risk brainstorming focus group with key stakeholders; (2) satisfied with the “group of people who participated” in the risk brainstorming focus group; and (3) overall a “good use of time”).33 It resulted in development of the “Sport Situational Prevention Approach Implementation Manual,” available free of charge to guide sports organizations through the situational prevention approach.34
Finally, research demonstrates that changing an individual’s environment — reducing triggers and increasing obstacles — can also affect sexual recidivism. For example, an approach called Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) is based on the premise that even a high-risk individual who has committed sexual offenses is less likely to reoffend if they have a different and more watchful community around them.35 CoSA provides trained volunteers to help with adjustment issues; housing, employment, or other challenges; and positive community engagement.
Developmental Crime Prevention
Developmental crime prevention aims to stop the development of problematic behaviors in children or adolescents through early interventions and responses to risk factors and behaviors.36 Children in earlier stages of life are more receptive to change — positive and negative. Because sexually problematic behaviors (particularly peer-to-peer37) often start in adolescence, it is important to work with children before the onset of such behaviors.38
In a 2014 meta-analysis of several large evaluations of sexual violence prevention covering a range of ages, researchers identified two promising primary sexual violence interventions.39 These two strategies — Safe Dates and Shifting Boundaries — focused on middle and high school youth, and outcome evaluations found both to be effective in reducing sexually violent behaviors. Green Dot, a program for high school students not included in the meta-analysis, also demonstrated effectiveness in reducing sexual violence based on rigorous evaluation.40
Many treatment interventions have moved away from a one-size-fits-all approach, recognizing that developmental and cognitive growth are different for each child and that individualized interventions can be most effective. Assessment tools offer an opportunity to better understand each individual. They measure risk for problematic sexual behaviors and exposure to adverse childhood experiences41— such as substance use, mental health issues, and other factors known to be related to causing harm — to develop targeted interventions. Risk and protective factors for adult sexual offending are well-established,42 and researchers have also identified dynamic risk and protective factors associated with adolescent sexual reoffending. Different ages call for different interventions, and best practices include family, community, and cultural risk factors as well as individual ones.43 Robert Prentky and colleagues developed a dynamic intervention needs and progress scale to identify risks relevant to the adolescent’s needs, along with creating individualized intervention plans and monitoring corresponding progress.44
Prevention is more likely to produce positive results if it focuses on more than one risk factor, lasts for a relatively long time (e.g., at least one year), and begins before adolescence.45 But research suggests that even short-term, developmentally appropriate interventions can reduce sexually problematic behaviors in both children and adolescents.46 The engagement of a child’s caregivers is essential to the intervention’s success.47
Another approach that reduces families’ risk factors and increases protective factors involves shoring up parenting skills. A study of various adverse childhood experiences connected those experiences to lifelong physical health, mental health, and social problems.48 Parenting skill interventions have successfully addressed adverse childhood experiences by reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors, likely decreasing later problematic sexual behaviors. For example, the home visiting model offers services and support to pregnant women and those with young children who have various risk factors.49 Evaluations found a statistically significant impact in several areas, including reductions in child maltreatment, juvenile delinquency, family violence, and crime.50
Recognizing the value of early intervention, the National Center on the Sexual Behavior of Youth developed the Problematic Sexual Behavior – Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy model. This family-oriented, cognitive-behavioral intervention aims to eliminate problematic sexual behaviors, improve prosocial behaviors, and enhance parenting skills. One study of 135 children ages 5-12 analyzed the National Center on the Sexual Behavior of Youth’s cognitive-behavioral and play therapy approaches. A 10-year follow-up study showed child protective services and law enforcement reported low rates (2%-3%) of sexual offenses for the group that received cognitive-behavioral therapy compared to the children randomized into an alternative play therapy group, who had significantly higher rates of problematic sexual behaviors (10%).51
Limitations of Research
Although funding and programming for sexual violence prevention have increased over time, critical gaps and challenges remain.52 The number of individual studies of sexual violence prevention programs has grown, but researchers have noted difficulties in comparing these studies or conducting meta-analyses because there are no widely accepted definitions of sexual misconduct or sexual violence. The lack of consistent use of research tools, methods, and sampling and the absence of consistent success metrics further exacerbate the problem. For example, many prevention programs evaluate success based on increasing knowledge or changing participants’ attitudes pre- and post-test, while others measure significant behavior change.53 Future research should measure behavior to further enhance the knowledge base.
In addition, most prevention programs are brief, one-time educational programs that focus on changing participants’ knowledge or attitudes. Unfortunately, none of these one-time programs have been proven effective in reducing sexually violent behaviors.54 Research shows that the most effective prevention programs are comprehensive, rather than a single education session. But funding can be a barrier. Evaluating comprehensive approaches can be expensive because researchers must implement complex longitudinal research designs to adequately isolate and understand the mechanisms by which programs work.
Conclusion
Growing evidence supports using situational and developmental crime prevention to complement traditional law enforcement and criminal justice interventions. Along with existing criminal justice and public health strategies — such as prosecution, treatment, educational campaigns, training, and public policy initiatives — these approaches constitute a comprehensive prevention and response model.
More recently, situational and developmental crime prevention approaches have shown promise with sexual violence prevention. But more rigorous evaluation is needed. Given the promising results, these strategies have the potential to be cost-effective for crime prevention or even ultimately reduce the costs for law enforcement interventions, arrests, and prosecution — while improving outcomes for individuals and increasing public safety.
Republished courtesy of NIJ
References
1. Emily J. Hanson and Lisa N. Sacco, “The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization: Issues for Congress,” Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, March 31, 2021.
2. Kathleen C. Basile et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence, Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2022, tables 15 and 16.
3. Andrew Van Dam, “Less Than 1% of Rapes Lead to Felony Convictions. At Least 89% of Victims Face Emotional and Physical Consequences,” The Washington Post, October 6, 2018.
4. Cora Peterson et al., “Lifetime Economic Burden of Rape Among U.S. Adults,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 52 no. 6 (2017): 691-701.
5. Elizabeth J. Letourneau et al., “The Economic Burden of Child Sexual Abuse in the United States,” Child Abuse and Neglect 79 (2018): 413-422; and Cora Peterson and Megan C. Kearns, “Systematic Review of Violence Prevention Economic Evaluations, 2000-2019,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 60 no. 4 (2021): 552-562.
6. Roberto H. Potter and Jeanne E. Krider, “Teaching About Violence Prevention: A Bridge Between Public Health and Criminal Justice Educators,” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 11 no. 2 (2000): 339-361; and Kathleen C. Basile et al., STOP SV: A Technical Package To Prevent Sexual Violence, Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2016.
7. David S. Lee et al., “Sexual Violence Prevention,” The Prevention Researcher 14 no. 2 (2007); and Pamela McMahon, “The Public Health Approach to the Prevention of Sexual Violence,” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 12 no. 1 (2000): 27-36.
8. James F. Anderson, Kelley Reinsmith-Jones, and Frances P. Reddington, “Violence Prevention in Disadvantaged Communities: The Need for Using Criminal Justice and Public Health Approaches,” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 27 no. 7 (2017): 743-744; Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington, “Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention,” Crime & Justice 19 (1995): 1-20; and Christy A. Visher and David Weisburd, “Identifying What Works: Recent Trends in Crime Prevention Strategies,” Crime, Law, and Social Change 28 (1997): 223-242.
9. Kimberly A. Lonsway, “Preventing Acquaintance Rape Through Education: What Do We Know?” Psychology of Women Quarterly 20 no. 2 (1996): 229-265.
10. Ron V. Clark, Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston, 1997).
11. Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington, “The Future of Crime Prevention: Developmental and Situational Strategies,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, January 2012, NCJ 237329.
12. Richard E. Tremblay and Wendy M. Craig, “Developmental Crime Prevention,” in Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, ed. Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
13. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone, “Applying Situational Principles to Sexual Offenses Against Children,” Crime Prevention Studies 19 (2006): 7-35.
14. Wortley and Smallbone, “Applying Situational Principles to Sexual Offenses Against Children.”
15. Janet Saul and Natalie C. Audage, Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Within Youth-Serving Organizations: Getting Started on Policies and Procedures, Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2007.
16. Structural factors include physical features in a location, as well as social norms and activities that occur in that space. Environmental factors can be both physical (e.g., a fence) and symbolic (e.g., a sign). Policies include official policies, procedures, and definitions related to the prevention of, and response to, campus sexual assault. See Sarah DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 19 no. 4 (2014): 346-362.
17. John E. Eck and Rob T. Guerette, “Own the Place, Own the Crime Prevention: How Evidence About Place-Based Crime Shifts the Burden of Prevention,” in The Future of Criminology, ed. Rolf Loeber and Brandon C. Welsh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
18. Keith Kaufman, Amber Hayes, and Lee Anna Knox, “The Situational Prevention Model: Creating Safer Environments for Children and Adolescents,” in The Prevention of Sexual Violence: A Practitioner’s Sourcebook, ed. Keith L. Kaufman (Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press, 2010).
19. Keith Kaufman et al., “Youth-Serving Organization Safety Risks and the Situational Prevention Approach,” in Re-Visioning Public Health Approaches for Protecting Children, ed. Bob Lonne et al. (New York: Springer Publishing, Inc., 2019a); and Keith Kaufman et al., “Recommendations for Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in Youth-Serving Organizations: Implications From an Australian Royal Commission Review of the Literature,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34 no. 20 (2019b): 4199-4214.
20. CrimeSolutions, “Program Profile: Shifting Boundaries (Classroom Curriculum and Schoolwide Intervention),” National Institute of Justice, March 22, 2012.
21. Bruce Taylor et al., “Shifting Boundaries: Final Report on an Experimental Evaluation of a Youth Dating Violence Prevention Program in New York City Middle Schools,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, award number 2008-MU-MU-0010, October 2011, NCJ 236175.
22. DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration.”
23. In a school context, these are “respecting boundaries agreements” that students complete when they feel their boundaries have been violated by another. Boundaries are defined, and the school administers the form as an intervention.
24. Taylor et al., “Shifting Boundaries”; and Bruce G. Taylor, Elizabeth A. Mumford, and Nan D. Stein, “Effectiveness of ‘Shifting Boundaries’ Teen Dating Violence Prevention Program for Subgroups of Middle School Students,” Journal of Adolescent Health 56 no. 2 (2015).
25/ DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration.”
26/ Kaufman et al., “Youth-Serving Organization Safety Risks and the Situational Prevention Approach.”
27. Jennifer S. Hirsch and Shamus Khan, Sexual Citizens: A Landmark Study of Sex, Power, and Assault on Campus (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020); Kaufman et al., “Recommendations for Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in Youth-Serving Organizations”; and Patricia Mahoney et al., Environmental and Situational Strategies for Sexual Violence Prevention: A Practitioners’ Guide for Leveraging Evidence for Impact on College Campuses (Baltimore, MD: MCASA and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2022).
28. Antonia Abbey et al., “Sexual Assault and Alcohol Consumption: What Do We Know About Their Relationship and What Types of Research Are Still Needed?” Aggression and Violent Behavior 9 no. 3 (2004); and Caroline Lippy and Sarah DeGue, “Exploring Alcohol Policy Approaches To Prevent Sexual Violence Perpetration,” Trauma, Violence and Abuse 17 no. 1 (2014).
29. DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration.”
30. Congress subsequently authorized the U.S. Center for SafeSport in the Protecting Young Victims From Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. The center receives grant funding from the SMART Office through the Keep Young Athletes Safe Program.
31. Kaufman et al., “Youth-Serving Organization Safety Risks and the Situational Prevention Approach.”
32. Keith Kaufman et al., “Integrating Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Strategies Into Youth-Serving Organizations,” in What Works With Sexual Offenders: Contemporary Perspectives In Theory, Assessment, Treatment and Prevention, ed. Jean Proulx et al. (New York: Wiley Press, 2020); and Kaufman et al., “Recommendations for Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in Youth-Serving Organizations.”
33. Keith Kaufman, Erin McConnell, and Katharine McMahon, Situational Prevention Approach for Sports Organizations – Train-The-Trainer Workshop, online training, U.S. Center for SafeSport, April 2022.
34. Keith Kaufman, Erin McConnell, and Katharine McMahon, “The Sport Situational Prevention Approach: Implementation Manual,” U.S. Center for SafeSport.
35. Martin Clarke, Susan Brown, and Birgit Vollm, “Circles of Support and Accountability for Sex Offenders: A Systematic Review of Outcomes,” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 29 no. 5 (2015); Robin J. Wilson, Janice E. Picheca, and Michelle Prinzo, Circles of Support & Accountability: An Evaluation of the Pilot Project in South-Central Ontario (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Correctional Service Canada, 2005); and Robin J. Wilson, Franca Cortoni, and Andrew J. McWhinnie, “Circles of Support & Accountability: A Canadian National Replication of Outcome Findings,” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 21 no. 4, (2009): 412-430.
36. Tremblay and Craig, “Developmental Crime Prevention” in Building a Safer Society; and Welsh and Farrington, “The Future of Crime Prevention.”
37. David Finkelhor and Anne Shattuck, Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles (Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Crimes Against Children Resource Center, 2012).
38. Antonia Abbey and Pam McAuslan, “A Longitudinal Examination of Male College Students’ Perpetration of Sexual Assault,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72 no. 5 (2004): 747; and Mark Chaffin et al., “Report of the ATSA Task Force on Children With Sexual Behavior Problems,” Child Maltreatment 13 no. 2 (2008): 199-218.
39. DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration.”
40. Ann L. Coker et al., “RCT Testing Bystander Effectiveness To Reduce Violence,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 52 no. 5 (2017): 566-578.
41. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adverse childhood experiences are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood (ages 0-17 years). Also included are aspects of the child’s environment that can undermine a sense of safety, stability, and bonding. Research has linked adverse childhood experiences to chronic health problems, mental illness, and substance misuse in adulthood. Adverse childhood experiences can negatively impact education and job opportunities.
42. Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, March 2017, NCJ 251950.
43. Robert Prentky et al., “Final Report: Development and Implementation Project for the Youth Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS),” Final report to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, award number 2016-AW-BX-K004, June 2020, NCJ 254814; and Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative.
44. Prentky et al., “Final Report: Development and Implementation Project for the Youth Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS).”
45. Richard E. Tremblay and Wendy M. Craig, “Developmental Crime Prevention,” Crime and Justice 19 (1995): 151-236.
46. Natasha Elkovitch et al., “Understanding Child Sexual Behavior Problems: A Developmental Psychopathology Framework,” Clinical Psychology Review 29 no. 7 (2009): 586-598; and Annick St. Amand, David E. Bard, and Jane F. Silovsky, “Meta-Analysis of Treatment for Child Sexual Behavior Problems: Practice Elements and Outcomes,” Child Maltreatment 13 no. 2 (2008): 145-166.
47. Jennifer D. Shields et al., “A Qualitative Analysis of Family Perspective on Treatment Services for Youth With Problematic Sexual Behavior,” Victims & Offenders 13 no. 7 (2018); Jennifer D. Shields et al., “A Qualitative Examination of Factors Impacting Family Engagement in Treatment for Youth With Problematic Sexual Behavior,” Children and Youth Services Review 108 (2020); Jamie R. Yoder and Samantha Brown, “Challenges Facing Families of Sexually Abusive Youth: What Prevents Service Engagement?” Victims & Offenders 10 no. 1 (2015): 29-50; and Jamie Yoder and Donna Ruch, “Youth Who Have Sexually Offended: Using Strengths and Rapport To Engage Families in Treatment,” Journal of Child and Family Studies 24 no. 9 (2015): 2521-2531.
48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences: Leveraging the Best Available Evidence, Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2019.
49. HomVEE, “Early Childhood Home Visiting Models: Reviewing Evidence of Effectiveness,” OPRE Report #2020-126, 2020.
50. Sarah Avellar and Diane Paulsell, Lessons Learned From the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness Review, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2011; and Katie Niland, Marykate Zukiewicz, and Emily Sama-Miller, “What the Evidence Says: Intimate Partner Violence and Home Visiting,” OPRE Report #2020-19, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 2020.
51. Melissa Y. Carpentier, Jane F. Silovsky, and Mark Chaffin, “Randomized Trial of Treatment for Children With Sexual Behavior Problems: Ten-Year Follow-Up,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74 no. 3 (2006): 482-488.
52. DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration.”
53. Shannon Morrison et al., “An Evidence-Based Review of Sexual Assault Preventive Intervention Programs,” Technical report to the National Institute of Justice, award number 2002-WG-BX-0006, October 2004, NCJ 207262.
54. DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration.”
55. The mission of the SMART Office is to assist jurisdictions nationwide with implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act and provide assistance needed to ensure public safety to criminal justice professionals across the entire spectrum of sex offender management activities.
56. Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative.
57. Meredith et al., “Enhancing Campus Sexual Assault Prevention Efforts Through Situational Interventions,” The Center for Effective Public Policy, February 2020.