Evaluating the Mentors in Violence Prevention Program: A Process Examination of How Implementation Can Affect Gender-Based Violence Outcomes

Abstract

Gender-based violence is a global public health issue and major human rights concern. It is also a type of violence that is disproportionately experienced by women and girls. This study is the first to examine multiple implementation process (dosage, fidelity, and adaptation) effects on changes in anticipated outcomes of a school-based bystander program targeting gender-based violence, Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP). Data were collected from two participant groups: mentees (students receiving MVP) and mentors (students delivering MVP), across nine participating high schools. The mentee sample comprised 698 students (about 48.9% males and 49.7% females), aged 11 to 14 years old ( M = 11.86, SD = 0.64). The mentor sample comprised 118 students (17.80% males, 82.20% females), aged 15 to 18 years old ( M = 16.42, SD = 0.60). Anticipated outcomes were changes in bystanders’ attitudes, social influences, control perceptions, intentions, willingness, and intervention behavior, measured using mentees’ self-reports at two time points approximately 1 year apart. Implementation processes were measured using mentors’ self-reports. Analyses revealed no effects for any of the implementation variables across changes in any of the outcomes measured. These results highlight important implications for the implementation of the MVP program going forward, given its widespread implementation in the United Kingdom. Possible ways that MVP may be enhanced in future are discussed. For example, furthering understanding into how gender-based violence and bystander intervention are addressed and framed during MVP lessons would give more insight into how the current implementation of the program can be improved to maximize its potential benefits.

The Mentors in Violence Prevention Programme: impact on students’ knowledge and attitudes related to violence, prejudice, and abuse, and willingness to intervene as a bystander in secondary schools in England

“…Despite the positive changes observed in mentors' attitudes, no signi cant quanti able impact of the programme was observed for mentees. This is in line with previous evaluations in Scotland and the West Midlands [43,28,32]. Two key drivers in bystander behaviour are perceptions of others' willingness and likeliness to intervene, and leadership skills.…”

“…racism, county lines, insults, online abuse). Evaluations of MVP in Scotland [24,43,32], Sweden [27], and the West Midlands [28], have also reported little impact of the programme on gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes. Observations of sessions in Sweden demonstrated that whilst some activities such as the gender box, were reported by students as a fun exercise to discuss what is speci c to boys and girls, there was less discussion about how to challenge gender norms [27].…”

Evaluating Mentors in Violence Prevention: A Longitudinal, Multilevel Assessment of Outcome Changes

“…However, published work utilising the same sample used in this article (Pagani et al, 2022b) examining the implementation of Mentors in Violence Prevention, found no dosage (level of exposure to the program), fidelity (extent to which core components such as gender-based violence and bystander intervention were covered during lessons), or adaptation (extent to which components of the program were adapted) effects. However, the change of Mentors in Violence Prevention's scope to also focus on more general violence (Katz, 2018) could potentially dilute the communication of gender-based violence, essentially making it a tick-box exercise (Pagani et al, 2022b), given that mentors are encouraged to cover this as a core value of the intervention. This could be another example of cultural differences across Scotland and America, where the evaluations conducted in America may have been conducted within schools which were fully supportive of the primary focus being on gender-based violence.…”

“…Another potential explanation to consider for the null findings is implementation variation (DeGue et al, 2014;Durlak & DuPre, 2008;Jouriles et al, 2018;Kovalenko et al, 2020;Storer et al, 2016). However, published work utilising the same sample used in this article (Pagani et al, 2022b) examining the implementation of Mentors in Violence Prevention, found no dosage (level of exposure to the program), fidelity (extent to which core components such as gender-based violence and bystander intervention were covered during lessons), or adaptation (extent to which components of the program were adapted) effects. However, the change of Mentors in Violence Prevention's scope to also focus on more general violence (Katz, 2018) could potentially dilute the communication of gender-based violence, essentially making it a tick-box exercise (Pagani et al, 2022b), given that mentors are encouraged to cover this as a core value of the intervention.…”

“…In addition, using the same sample and measures as this study, many socio-cognitive predictors have been shown to be significantly associated with intervention behavior (Pagani et al, 2022a ). However, the extent to which these theoretical factors are explicitly addressed during lessons is less clear (Pagani et al, 2022b ). Furthermore, how these factors are being framed within the context of the key messages that Mentors in Violence Prevention intends to communicate is unknown.…”