Program Profile: Bringing in the Bystander High School Curriculum

The goal of this bystander-focused, classroom-delivered curriculum is to reduce rates of interpersonal violence among high school students. The program is rated Ineffective. The program had no statistically significant impact on various measures of interpersonal violence, victim empathy, and measures of proactive bystander behavior. There was a statistically significant decrease for the treatment group in bystander denial about the role students could play in preventing interpersonal violence.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

The Bringing in the Bystander program was initially created to address interpersonal violence among college students but was later adapted for other populations, such as high school students. The Bringing in the Bystander—High School Curriculum (BITB-HSC) is a seven-session, bystander-focused, classroom-delivered curriculum. The goal of the program is to reduce rates of interpersonal violence among high school students. The program also focuses on decreasing bystander (i.e., students, teachers, and staff who witness incidents of relationship and sexual violence) barriers and myths about rape; and increasing knowledge of interpersonal violence, media literacy, victim empathy, bystander readiness, and bystander behavior (such as conversations about safety).

Program Components

The curriculum is delivered to a mixed-sex audience of high school students during class periods (approximately 45 minutes per session). BITB-HSC sessions are ideally co-facilitated by one individual who identifies as male and one who identifies as female, in order to model women and men working together to end interpersonal violence. The sessions include a variety of instructional and experimental learning strategies, such as lectures, large- and small-group discussions, hands-on exercises, skill-building activities, and video segments.

The first three modules educate students on stalking, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and dating violence, and how these behaviors negatively impact communities, largely through a media literacy lens. Modules four and five introduce a bystander framework, emphasize participants’ role in creating a healthy community, and teach participants how to recognize interpersonal violence. The last two modules, modules six and seven, teach students to intervene safely and effectively during instances of dating and sexual violence.

In addition to student programming, the BITB-HSC program includes a 60-minute School Personnel Workshop. The goal of the workshop is to provide instructors and other school staff with the skills to be positive bystanders in situations of adolescent interpersonal violence. School personnel are expected to reinforce the information and skills conveyed in the workshop.

Program Theory

BITB-HSC is grounded in the health belief model (Rosenstock 1974), transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska and DiClemente 1984; Prochaska et al. 1992), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), and diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers 2002). The health belief model (Rosenstock 1974) states that, in order for individuals to change their behaviors, they must feel threatened by their current behavioral patterns, believe that the benefit of changing their behavior outweighs the cost, and feel competent within themselves to overcome perceived barriers to taking action. The transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska and DiClemente 1984) proposes that individuals advance through a series of distinct stages when changing their behavior, moving from contemplation to preparation, to behavior change, and to behavior maintenance. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) suggests that individuals act rationally, according to their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. According to this theory, intentions are important determinants of actual acts, but an individual might not perform an intended act if the behavior is prohibited or limited by the environment. According to the diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers 2002), innovation, a new idea, or an intervention can be spread throughout a community over time causing the community to become saturated with new ideas or principles, leading to the emergence of new community norms.

Altogether, these theories suggest that bystander intervention is influenced by beliefs about intervening, the cost and benefits of intervening, perception of community norms about intervening, as well as individual behavioral intentions. The program attempts to increase bystander intervention by helping students develop awareness, teaching bystander behaviors to diffuse incidents of interpersonal violence, and changing community norms regarding intervening by saturating the community (e.g., teachers and staff) with ideas, information, and skills that promote relationship safety, equality, and respect.  

Study

Edwards and colleagues (2019) conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of Bringing in the Bystander?High School Curriculum (BITB-HSC) on a sample of high school students. The sample consisted of 2,403 high school students in grades 9 to 12 from 25 schools in northern New England. Two of the 25 schools did not participate in the long-term posttest (T4). High schools were randomly assigned to the treatment or control condition. Classrooms in the treatment schools were selected non-randomly for participation. The treatment group consisted of 1,081 students who completed a baseline survey, participated in the BITB-HSC, and completed an immediate, short-term, and long-term post-test. Classrooms in the control schools were selected non-randomly for participation. The control group consisted of 1,322 students who completed a baseline survey and an immediate short-term, and long-term posttest, but did not participate in the BITB-HSC.

The mean age of participants was 15.8 years (ages ranged from 13?19). Half of students were female (50.9 percent). The majority of participants identified as white (85.1 percent) and heterosexual (84.5 percent). Youth in the control condition were older, more knowledgeable about interpersonal violence, and had more victim empathy than youth in the treatment group, at baseline. These differences were all adjusted for in the inferential analyses.

This study assessed the impact of BITB-HSC on the following outcomes: past-year sexual harassment and stalking perpetration; past-year sexual assault and dating violence perpetration; past-year sexual harassment and stalking victimization; past-year sexual assault and dating violence victimization; victim empathy; facilitators of bystander helping; proactive bystander behavior (i.e., past-year prevention talk, past-year use of social media, and past-year conversations about safety); and bystander readiness to help.

Exploratory factor analysis was employed to create scales from 13 items, which measured interpersonal violence victimization and interpersonal violence perpetration in the past 2 months and the past 12 months. The summarized dichotomized scale scores for sexual harassment and stalking victimization (e.g., ?Made you afraid for your personal safety because someone showed up at your home, school, or work?; ?Made gestures, rude remarks, or used sexual body language to embarrass or upset you?), sexual harassment and stalking perpetration, sexual assault and dating violence victimization (e.g., ?Had sexual activities when you did not want because you were drunk or on drugs?, ?Threatened to hit, slap, or physically hurt you?), and sexual assault and dating violence perpetration were used in the analyses. These variables indicated whether participants personally experienced the behavior (victimization) and whether participants engaged in the behavior (perpetration).

The Victim Empathy Scale (VES) was used to measure victims? empathy. The scale consisted of three items (e.g., ?I could imagine being in the place of a victim of relationship abuse and/or sexual assault;? ?I can empathize with the emotions of a victim of relationship abuse and/ or sexual assault?). Response options ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 4 (agree strongly). The Pros and Cons of Bystander Action Scale was used to measure barriers and facilitators of bystander helping. The scale consisted of eight items assessing positive attitudes toward helping and barriers to helping (e.g., ?It is important for student to be part of keeping everyone safe;? ?I might get made fun of or picked on if I help?). Response options ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 4 (agree strongly). Proactive bystander behavior (e.g., social media use about one's unsupportiveness of violence, talk about safety) was measured using six items (three items referring to the past 2 months and three identical items referring to the past 12 months). Proactive items were summed so that higher scores were indicative of greater proactive bystander behavior. The Denial subscale of the Readiness to Help Scale was used to assess bystander readiness, or the extent to which students agreed with statements indicating denial about the role that they could play in preventing interpersonal violence at all time points. Response options on this four-item scale ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 4 (agree strongly). Items on the Bystander Readiness Scale were summed so that higher numbers were indicative of higher denial of responsibility in situations of relationship abuse and sexual assault. Missing values were imputed for continuous outcome variables (e.g., bystander readiness, victim empathy, facilitators of bystander helping, proactive bystander behavior). Missing values were not imputed for the dichotomous outcome variables (i.e., victimization, perpetration).

Multilevel mixed (MLM) mean regression models were used to evaluate the impact of BITB-HSC on the continuous outcomes at an average of 44.17 days after baseline (immediate posttest), at an average of 97.94 days after baseline (short-term posttest), and at an average of 423.92 days after baseline (long-term posttest). Logistic MLM regression models were used to evaluate the impact of the treatment condition on the dichotomous outcomes at the three follow-up periods. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the results at the long-term follow-up period (an average of 423.92 days after baseline). Time between surveys was controlled for in the analyses. The models also adjusted for the covariates (race, gender, age, poverty status, and sexual orientation) that were deemed to be different between the excluded students and students who participated in the study. Intra-class correlations were conducted to assess the cluster effect among students within the same school. The findings could only be considered preliminary, given the high attrition rate, and the evaluator was independent of the program. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

The Bringing in the Bystander—High School Curriculum (BITB-HSC) Prevention Program can be purchased online from Soteria Solutions (Soteria Solutions, N.d.). The BITB-HSC Bundle is $1,900 and includes everything needed to implement the curriculum for a high school community, including two facilitator guides, facilitator training videos, access to the BITB-HSC online community, virtual office hours, a bystander intervention social media kit, and more. The BITB-HSC Partner Level Curriculum is $1,600 and includes two facilitator guides, access to the online community, and virtual office hours. Soteria Solutions also offers three training options for community partners, teachers, and students to facilitate BITB-HSC. Join training is $475 per person for in-person training and is $400 per person for virtual training. This training option is offered twice a year, allows up to 40 participants, and is open to individuals from different schools and organizations. Host training is $475 per person for in-person training and $400 per person for virtual training. This option offers the chance for the hosting school or organization to train many people at once (minimum of 12 and maximum of 40). In addition to getting customized training material specific to their organization, school, or community, the host gets the opportunity to choose the date and location of the training. The Customized Small Group training is $1,200 for up to five attendees and $300 per person for additional attendees. This option enables an organization to have up to five attendees trained to co-facilitate, support, or train others. Consulting services for successful implementation, adaption, and evaluation of BITB-HSC is available for $200/hour.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179–211.

Edwards, Katie M., Emily A. Waterman, Katherine D. M. Lee, Lorelei Himlin, Kirby Parm, and Victoria L. Banyard. 2021. “Feasibility and Acceptability of a High School Relationship Abuse and Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention Program: School Personnel and Student Perspectives.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14):NP7070–NP7085. 

Edwards, Katie M., Kara Anne Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, and Robert P. Eckstein. 2015. “Bystander Action in Situations of Dating and Sexual Aggression: A Mixed Methodological Study of High School Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44(12):2321–36. 

Edwards, Katie M., Kara Anne Rodenhizer, and Robert P. Eckstein. 2020. “School Personnel’s Bystander Action in Situations of Dating Violence, Sexual Violence, and Sexual Harassment Among High School Teens: A Qualitative Analysis.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(11-12):2358–69. 

Edwards, Katie M., Katherine D. M. Lee, Emily A. Waterman, and Victoria L. Banyard. 2019. “Implementation Science Analysis of a School-Delivered Bystander-Focused Violence Prevention Curriculum.” School Social Work Journal 44(1):1–23

Edwards, Katie M., Stephanie N. Sessarego, Kimberly J. Mitchell, Hong Chang, Emily A. Waterman, and Victoria L. Banyard. 2020. “Preventing Teen Relationship Abuse and Sexual Assault through Bystander Training: Intervention Outcomes for School Personnel.” American Journal of Community Psychology 65(1-2):160–72. 

 

Lee, Katherine D. M., Katie M. Edwards, Victoria L. Banyard, Robert P. Eckstein, and Stephanie N. Sessarego. 2021. “Youth Strategies for Positive Bystander Action in Situations of Dating and Sexual Violence: Implications for Measurement and Programming.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(13-14):NP7653–NP7674. 

Prochaska, James O., and Carlo C. DiClemente. 1984. “Self-Change Processes, Self-Efficacy and Decisional Balance Across Five Stages of Smoking Cessation.” Progress in Clinical and Biological Research 156:131–140.

Prochaska, James O., Carlo C. DiClemente, and John C. Norcross. 1992. “In Search of How People Change: Applications to Addictive Behaviors.” American Psychologist 47:1102–1114.

Rosenstock, I.M. 1974. “Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model.” Health Education & Behavior 2:328–35.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Bystander Education Programs for Sexual Assault Prevention on High School and College Campuses

This practice comprises programs designed to decrease the prevalence of sexual assault among adolescents and college students by educating would-be bystanders (i.e., witnesses) about sexual assault, and promoting the willingness to intervene in risky situations. The practice is rated Effective for reducing rape myth acceptance, increasing bystander efficacy, and increasing intent to help. It is rated Promising for increasing bystander helping behavior and decreasing rape supportive attitudes.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Attitudes & Beliefs - Bystander Efficacy
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Intent to Help
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Rape Myth Acceptance
	Attitudes & Beliefs - Rape Supportive Attitudes
	Victimization - Actual Helping Behavior

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?