Testing the Efficacy of the Ability School Engagement Partnership Program (ASEP)

NCT04281966 | Unknown

• 1 other identifier: 2019002851
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 753
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

This project is an up-scaled test of the Ability School Engagement Partnership (ASEP) Project. The ASEP is a partnership program that aims to increase school attendance and is grounded in the theory of Third-Party-Policing (TPP). In ASEP, school-based police officers partner with schools (i.e., the third-party) who have legal powers to control and prevent school absenteeism. The ASEP intervention includes an ASEP conference in which the legal requirements to attend school are explicitly communicated in a procedurally just way to young people missing school and their parents/guardians. Restorative Outcomes Australia (ROA) is a provide provider partner who will oversee the facilitation of the ASEP conferences. While the program is designed to re-engage these young people in school and/or facilitate transitions to work and reduce antisocial behavior (e.g., delinquency), this trial will also test the capacity of the program to improve collaboration between the schools and police and also monitor young participants' future life outcomes, such as future welfare dependence.

Conditions

School Attendance; Welfare Dependence; Antisocial Behavior

Keywords

School Attendance; Welfare Dependence; Antisocial Behavior; Third-Party Policing Partnerships

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (10)

• Official School Absences

  A count of the number of school absences of young people.

  Six-Months Post-Intervention

• Official Arrest Records

  A count of official arrest records of young people.

  Six-Months Post Intervention

• Perceptions of School Legitimacy

  These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of legitimacy of school staff with higher values equating to better perceptions of school staff legitimacy.

  Two-months post intervention

• Perceptions of School Procedural Justice

  These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of procedural justice of school staff with higher values equating to better perceptions of school staff procedural justice.

  Two-months post intervention

• Perceptions of Police Legitimacy

  These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of legitimacy of police in general with higher values equating to better perceptions of police legitimacy.

  Two-months post intervention

• Perceptions of Police Procedural Justice

  These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of procedural justice of police in general.

  Two-months post intervention

• Perceptions of Family Legitimacy

  Adapted from the work of Trinkner, 2012; Trinkner et al., 2012; Trinker \& Cohn, 2014. Measures respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of family legitimacy with higher values equating to better perceptions of family legitimacy.

  Two-months post intervention

• Perceptions of Family Procedural Justice

  Adapted from the work of Trinkner, 2012; Trinkner et al., 2012; Trinker \& Cohn, 2014. Measures respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of family procedural justice with higher values equating to better perceptions of family legitimacy.

  Two-months post intervention

• General Well-being

  The Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS; Haver et al., 2015; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009; Taggart et al., 2015; Tennant et al., 2007) to be administered to young people and parents in the experimental condition only. It includes 7 items, scores range from 7 to 35, and higher scores coincide with better well-being.

  Two-months post intervention

• Self-efficacy

  Includes 12 items from the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory (Carver et al., 1989; Carver, 1997) to be administered to young people and parents in the experimental condition only. Scores will range from 12 to 48 and coded so that higher values equate to better coping skills.

  Two-months post intervention

Study Arms (2)

Experiment

EXPERIMENTAL

For young people from schools randomly assigned to the experimental ASEP condition will participate in the ASEP intervention. The ASEP intervention is a Third-Party Policing partnership that involves a partnership between police and school, an ASEP conference and follow up which is organized and led by a conference facilitator with the young person, their parent (or guardian), a school representative (e.g., teacher), and a uniformed school-based police officer. The police and school representatives will be trained by the facilitator to utilize procedurally just dialogue during the entirety of the conference. The ASEP conference script will utilize a procedurally just dialogue to increase both the young person and their parents' perceptions and knowledge of the legitimacy of the truancy laws, police, and schools in order to gain willing compliance to follow the rules.

Behavioral: Ability School Engagement Program Conference

Control

NO INTERVENTION

Participants allocated to the control condition will be given the "business-as-usual' approach to handling school non-attendance. The control participants will be sanctioned in the usual manner for engaging in truancy through the requirements denoted in the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Act (2006).

Interventions

Ability School Engagement Program Conference BEHAVIORAL

The ASEP conference focuses on understanding the reasons behind why the young person is not attending school regularly, understand how the young person's non-attendance affects other conference participants, highlight the legal consequences of parents and/or guardians to ensure that their child attends school, and the development of a young person-centered Action Plan, which will specifically detail the "actions" that all parties are to take over the next three months to ensure that the young person re-engages with school and/or transitions into paid work.

Experiment

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 12 Years - 16 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17)

You may qualify if:

• High school aged young people only, aged 12 to 16;
• Have 15% or more unexplained absences over each other previous two school terms;
• Have no known legitimate explanation for absences (e.g., ongoing medical issue); and
• Have at least one responsibly adult in their lives (e.g., parent, guardian, or carer) who provides social and/or financial support.

You may not qualify if:

• None

Sponsors & Collaborators

• The University of Queensland: lead
• Restorative Outcomes Australia: collaborator
• Department of Education, Queensland: collaborator
• Queensland Police Service: collaborator
• Australian Department of Social Services: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

The University of Queensland

Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia

RECRUITING

Related Publications (22)

• Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., Mazerolle, L., & Eggins, E. (2019). Parental and student perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy in the context of truancy: Results from a randomized field trial. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 52(4), 534-557.

  BACKGROUND

• Bennett, S., Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Eggins, E., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). Truancy intervention reduces crime: Results from a randomized field trial. Justice Quarterly, 35(2), 309-329.

  BACKGROUND

• Cardwell, S. M., Mazerolle, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Parental attachment and truant rationalizations of antisocial behavior: findings from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Crime and Justice, 1-19.

  BACKGROUND

• Cardwell, S. M., Mazerolle, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Truancy intervention and violent offending: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49.

  BACKGROUND

• Cardwell, S. M., Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Changing the relationship between impulsivity and antisocial behavior: the impact of a school engagement program. Crime & Delinquency, 65(8), 1076-1101.

  BACKGROUND

• Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989 Feb;56(2):267-83. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.56.2.267.

  PMID: 2926629 BACKGROUND

• Cohn, E. S., Trinkner, R. J., Rebellon, C. J., Van Gundy, K. T., & Cole, L. M. (2012). Legal attitudes and legitimacy: Extending the integrated legal socialization model. Victims & Offenders, 7(4), 385-406.

  BACKGROUND

• Mazerolle, L. (2014). The power of policing partnerships: Sustaining the gains. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 341-365.

  BACKGROUND

• Mazerolle L, Antrobus E, Bennett S, Eggins E. Reducing Truancy and Fostering a Willingness to Attend School: Results from a Randomized Trial of a Police-School Partnership Program. Prev Sci. 2017 May;18(4):469-480. doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0771-7.

  PMID: 28317075 BACKGROUND

• Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Cardwell, S. M., Piquero, A. R., & Bennett, S. (2019). Harmonizing legal socialization to reduce antisocial behavior: Results from a randomized field trial of truanting young people. Justice Quarterly, 1-28.

  BACKGROUND

• Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., Cardwell, S. M., Eggins, E., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Disrupting the pathway from truancy to delinquency: a randomized field trial test of the longitudinal impact of a school engagement program. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(4), 663-689.

  BACKGROUND

• Murphy, K., & Mearns, M. (2008). The Public Safety and Security in Australia Survey: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security (Working Paper, October 2008). The Australian National University.

  BACKGROUND

• Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513-548.

  BACKGROUND

• Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47(4), 1265-1293.

  BACKGROUND

• Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Nov 27;5:63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.

  PMID: 18042300 BACKGROUND

• Trinkner, R. (2012). Testing the procedural justice model of legal socialization: Expanding beyond the legal world. (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.

  BACKGROUND

• Trinkner R, Cohn ES, Rebellon CJ, Van Gundy K. Don't trust anyone over 30: parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent behavior over time. J Adolesc. 2012 Feb;35(1):119-32. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.05.003. Epub 2011 Jun 12.

  PMID: 21669454 BACKGROUND

• Trinkner R, Cohn ES. Putting the "social" back in legal socialization: procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law Hum Behav. 2014 Dec;38(6):602-17. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000107. Epub 2014 Sep 22.

  PMID: 25243981 BACKGROUND

• Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med. 1997;4(1):92-100. doi: 10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6.

  PMID: 16250744 BACKGROUND

• Haver A, Akerjordet K, Caputi P, Furunes T, Magee C. Measuring mental well-being: A validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in Norwegian and Swedish. Scand J Public Health. 2015 Nov;43(7):721-7. doi: 10.1177/1403494815588862. Epub 2015 Jun 3.

  PMID: 26041133 BACKGROUND

• Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, Platt S, Parkinson J, Weich S. Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Feb 19;7:15. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-15.

  PMID: 19228398 BACKGROUND

• Taggart, F., Stewart-Brown, S., & Parkinson, J. (2015). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) User Guide, Version 2. NHS Health Scotland.

  BACKGROUND

Related Links

• Crime Solutions: Ability School Engagement Program

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Personality Disorders; Mental Disorders

Study Officials

• Lorraine Mazerolle, Ph.D.

  The University of Queensland

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Sarah Bennett, Ph.D.

  The University of Queensland

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• Stephanie Cardwell, Ph.D.

  The University of Queensland

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Central Study Contacts

Lorraine Mazerolle, Ph.D.

CONTACT

+61 7 334 67877; l.mazerolle@uq.edu.au

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: PREVENTION
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Model Details: The current project utilizes a randomized controlled cluster trial to assess the efficacy of the ASEP intervention and thereby theoretically test the efficacy of third-party-policing. Data will be collected from high schools that are in either socially disadvantaged areas or have students who reside in socially disadvantaged areas. A total of 69 high schools were identified as eligible for the Trial based upon measures of social disadvantage. The 69 eligible high schools were randomly assigned to participate in the ASEP (experiment) or business-as-usual (control) conditions. Young people from schools who take part in the ASEP (experiment) will be recruited from the experimental schools. Official data will be obtained about the young people (identified for those in the experimental condition who consent; de-identified for the young people in the control schools).

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 20, 2020
• First Posted: February 24, 2020
• Study Start: June 21, 2019
• Primary Completion: November 30, 2021
• Study Completion: November 30, 2021
• Last Updated: March 9, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-03

Locations

AU (1)