GenPMTO - Adaptation and Feasibility Study
Conditions: Violence, Emotional Adjustment, Parenting, Parent-Child Relations
Sponsor: The Behavioural Insights Team

Evaluation protocol
GenPMTO: Adaptation
and feasibility study 
14/09/2023 
Tom McBride
Neeraj Rahal,
Lilli Wagstaff,
Niall Daly,
Emma Leith,
Martin Wessel,
Jack Martin,

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to colleagues from Barnardo's
(including Elizabeth Brailsford, and Daniel Chery) and
colleagues from Implementation Sciences
International (including Dr Abigail Gewirtz, Dr Marion
Forgatch, and Laura Rains), for their assistance with
and input into the early stages of this evaluation. We
are also grateful to colleagues from the Behavioural
Insights Team (particularly Dr Patrick Taylor, and
Leonie Nicks), the Youth Endowment Fund
(particularly Dr Mollie Bourne, Dr Daniel Acquah, and
Dr Amy Wells), Dr Sajid Humayun (University of
Greenwich) and Dr Kirsten Asmussen (Foundations)
for their helpful advice and feedback.
We are grateful to the Youth Endowment Fund
(originally funded by an endowment from the Home
Office) and Stuart Roden for the funding which
supports this work, and to the Behavioural Insights
Team and Nesta for their support and role in
administering this funding.
About
This work is being undertaken by the Ending Youth Violence Lab at the Behavioural
Insights Team. The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) is a global social purpose company
that generates and applies behavioural insights to inform policy, improve public services
and deliver results for citizens and society.  With company number 08567792.
This report was first published in September 2023, and is available to download as a free
PDF at: https://www.bi.team/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/GenPMTO-Feasibility-study-
protocol1.pdf

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
2
Contents
Contents
2
1. Study rationale and background
4
About the Ending Youth Violence Lab
4
Project overview
5
2. Intervention
7
Intervention overview
7
Intervention theory of change
10
How the intervention compares with other services and services-as-usual
11
3. Research Objectives
12
4. Monitoring and success criteria
17
5. Design and methodology
20
Stage 1 - Adaptation and training
20
Overview
20
Design
20
Training
22
Stage 2 - Feasibility study
23
Design
23
Participants
24
Methods and data collection
27
Qualitative research activities
27
Quantitative research activities
31
Incentives
32
Data analysis
34
Qualitative analysis
34
Quantitative analysis
35
Further adaptation
37
7. Planned outputs
41
8. Ethics and data protection
42
Ethics
42
Safeguarding
43
Data protection
44
Data management
45
9. Racial diversity and inclusion
47
10. Risks
49
11. Timeline
50
Annexes
51
Annex A: Summary of GenPMTO programme using the TIDieR framework
51
Annex B: Evaluation team experience
54
Annex C: BIT data protection policy summary
55

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
3
Project title
GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study
Developer (Institution)
Implementation Sciences International Inc. (ISII)
Delivery partner
(Institution)
Barnardo’s
Evaluator (Institution)
Ending Youth Violence Lab (part of the Behavioural Insights Team)
Principal investigator(s)
Tom McBride
Evaluation plan author(s)
Neeraj Rahal, Lilli Wagstaff, Niall Daly, Emma Leith, Martin
Wessel, Jack Martin, Tom McBride
Evaluation setting
3 boroughs in London (Barking & Dagenham, Brent, and Tower
Hamlets)
Target group
Caregivers of young people aged 8-14, who have been identified
as being at risk of committing violent acts and/or entering into the
criminal justice system.
Planned number of
participants
Approximately:
●
36-90 caregivers (quantitative sample)
●
9-12 caregivers (qualitative sample, subset of caregivers in
quantitative sample)
●
12 GenPMTO trained practitioners (qualitative sample)
●
2 Barnardo’s programme managers (qualitative sample)
●
6 staff from referring agencies (qualitative sample)
Funding source and
declaration of interests
Funding was received for this work, from the Youth Endowment
Fund (YEF) and from philanthropist Stuart Roden (via Prism the
Gift Fund). There are no known conflicts of interest associated
with this publication, and there has been no significant financial
support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
4
1. Study rationale and background
About the Ending Youth Violence Lab
The Ending Youth Violence Lab (‘the Lab’) was founded in Summer 2022, bringing together expertise
in intervention, evaluation and youth violence. It is funded by Stuart Roden and the Youth Endowment
Fund (YEF) and is being incubated at the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT).
The Lab’s mission is to catalyse a step change in understanding and tackling youth violence. To do
this, we do 3 things: Firstly, we identify promising interventions which seek to address youth violence.
Secondly, we fund the development and delivery of these interventions. Thirdly, we conduct research
to assess the delivery of interventions, identify ways to improve them, and explore the potential for
further evaluation (with a focus on early-stage testing, to support the work of YEF).
We prioritise three strands of activity:
1.
Supporting the importation, adaptation, and testing of well-evidenced interventions
from overseas - we identify approaches with strong evidence of improving youth violence
outcomes or related upstream factors in other countries, adapt these to the UK context, and
deliver early-stage testing.
2.
Working with UK organisations to develop strong ideas into evaluable interventions -
we work with the youth violence prevention sector to find interventions that have strong
theoretical underpinnings, are committed to rigorous evaluation, and oversee the development
and early-stage testing needed to get them trial-ready.
3.
Working with developers, researchers, practitioners, and service users to co-design
new and innovative approaches - we build partnerships and fund the development of novel
approaches to tackling youth violence, with a focus on addressing underserved populations
and unmet needs.
The project described in this protocol forms part of strand 1 of the Lab’s approach.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
5
Project overview
About the intervention
This project is a multi-stage evaluation of GenPMTO (Generation Parent Management Training –
Oregon Model). GenPMTO is a parenting programme which involves trained practitioners using active
teaching approaches (such as group problem-solving, role-play, and video modelling) to support
caregivers in using positive parenting strategies at home. The programme is designed to improve
parenting practices, as well as a range of outcomes for young people, including improving academic
performance, reducing school exclusions, and reducing offending and criminal behaviour.
The programme was originally developed in the USA, though now operates internationally, including
in Denmark, Iceland, Mexico, Chile, Canada, the Netherlands and Norway, where it has been
delivered and successfully evaluated. However, GenPMTO has never been delivered in the UK.
Evidence registries in the USA and UK classify the programme’s effectiveness as being strongly
1
2
supported by research evidence. Importantly, and rarely for programmes of this type, GenPMTO has
long-term evidence of reducing arrests
.
3 4
About the evaluation
This project represents the first attempt to deliver and evaluate GenPMTO in the UK. To do so, the
Lab is conducting a multi-stage evaluation, involving delivering the intervention across three London
boroughs, with a focus on caregivers of 8-14-year-old children and young people (CYPs), who are
identified to have risk factors associated with involvement in violence. The stages of the project
include:
●
Stage 1 & 2 - Adaptation, training and feasibility study - in its initial two stages, this project
will be testing the extent to which it is feasible to deliver and evaluate in the UK. By adaptation,
we mean making a series of changes to the programme to attempt to maximise its
acceptability and feasibility in a UK context. Note that while adaptation (and training of
practitioners) will start in advance of the feasibility study, the success of the programme's
adaptation and practitioner training will continue to be monitored and tested in parallel with the
feasibility study. Further adaptations may be made in advance of the next stage. If the results
of these stages are positive and suggest that delivery and evaluation are feasible, the project
will move to the third stage.
●
Stage 3 - Pilot trial - the Lab will further test the extent to which it is feasible to robustly
evaluate this programme, and gather preliminary evidence on the programme’s impact during
a pilot trial. If these results are positive, we will progress to the fourth stage.
●
Stage 4 - Efficacy trial - the Lab will conduct an efficacy trial, to robustly determine if the
programme can have a positive impact on outcomes for families and young people in the UK.
To design this project, the Lab has collaborated with two partners. The first is ISII (Implementation
Sciences International, Inc.), a research-based, non-profit organisation based in the USA, which
implements the GenPMTO programme, in partnership with the programme developers. ISII also trains
4 YEF’s toolkit of existing research on parenting programmes highlights a lack of evidence about the direct impact of
parenting programmes on crime and violence.
3 Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., Degarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. G. (2009). Testing the Oregon delinquency model with
9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study. Development and psychopathology, 21(2), 637-660.
2 https://guidebook.eif.org.uk/programme/generation-pmto-group
1 https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/the-oregon-model-parent-management-training-pmto-2/

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
6
community practitioners in its use across the world. The second partner is Barnardo’s, the UK's
largest children's charity, and the delivery partner for the project. Barnardo's bring significant expertise
and experience in delivering similar services and working with vulnerable families.
About the rationale for this evaluation
Whilst there is evidence of GenPMTO’s impact on a range of outcomes, this is based on studies
conducted outside the UK. There is a known issue with programmes being transported into new
countries and not demonstrating effectiveness when trialled in their new setting and there are several
examples in the UK of failed replication of programmes
. One often cited explanation for the high
5 6 7
volume of null result trials in the UK, in the context of transporting programmes from overseas, is that
these programmes haven’t undergone the necessary formative work of ensuring they are appropriate,
deliverable, and evaluable within the UK context . These are necessary pre-steps to a full-scale
8
impact evaluation and mitigate the risk of expending resources on an extensive trial before the
programme has been adapted to the domestic context, which would ultimately yield uninformative
results.
By undertaking a staged evaluation approach to GenPMTO, this enables gathering preliminary data
on the programmes’ feasibility of delivery and evaluability. This facilitates being able to refine the
programme and approach to evaluation, to apply learnings from early stages to design a more robust
full-scale efficacy trial. Provided feasibility, acceptability and evaluability are established, there is a
strong case to conduct a full-scale efficacy trial on GenPMTO in the UK, given the strength of its
existing evidence, cultural similarity with the European countries where evidence has already been
gathered in, and its potential impact on reducing arrests post-delivery.
About this protocol
This document is the evaluation protocol for Stage 1 - Adaptation and training, and Stage 2 -
Feasibility study. For ease of reference, we refer to this document as the ‘feasibility study protocol’.
Should the evaluation progress to Stage 3 and Stage 4, we will publish a second protocol covering
the pilot and efficacy trials, prior to their delivery. Our rationale for publishing separate protocols is that
the design of the latter stages will be influenced by what we learn in the feasibility study. For example,
there may be changes to the delivery of the programme, if we encounter issues with recruitment and
retention in these first stages. We may also alter the set of outcomes we plan to measure if we find
outcome surveys to be too lengthy, burdensome, or difficult for participants to understand.
8 Lendrum, A., & Humphrey, N. (2012). The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings.
Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 635-652.
7 Fonagy, P., Butler, S., Cottrell, D., Scott, S., Pilling, S., Eisler, I. et al. (2018) Multisystemic therapy versus management as
usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. The
Lancet Psychiatry, 5(2), 119-133.
6 Humayun, S., Herlitz, L. Chesnokov, M., Doolan, M., Landau, S. and Scott, S. (2017). Randomized controlled trial of
Functional Family Therapy for offending and antisocial behavior in UK youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
58(9), 1023-1032.
5 Robling, M., Bekkers, M-J., Bell, K., Butler, C. C., Cannings-John, R., Channon, S. et al. (2016). Effectiveness of a
nurse-led intensive home-visitation programme for first-time teenage mothers (Building Blocks): a pragmatic randomised
controlled trial. Lancet, 387, 146-155.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
7
2. Intervention
Intervention overview
Background
GenPMTO is a targeted parenting programme for families with children and young people aged 3 -18,
at risk of behaviour problems. It is based on the theoretical work of Gerald Patterson and colleagues
at the Oregon Social Learning Center. GenPMTO aims to improve school functioning, social
9
relationships, and prevent involvement in criminal justice and substance use.
Based on robust evaluations, the programme has a strong track record of improving a range of
important outcomes for parents and young people, such as reducing child externalising and
internalising problems. The Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) awarded GenPMTO an evidence
rating of 4 . Level 4 is the highest rating on the EIF strength of evidence scale, identifying
10
programmes with evidence of a long-term impact and multiple rigorous evaluations. The programme
has been found to positively impact both on child mental health and wellbeing (through improved child
adjustment, social competence, emotional regulation, and a reduction in internalised behaviour
problems), and on crime, violence and antisocial behaviour (through reduced police arrests, child
conduct problems, externalising behaviour problems, antisocial-aggressive behaviour, delinquency
and criminal behaviour, and improved social/prosocial behaviour). In terms of magnitude and
longevity of impact, EIF calculated GenPMTO is associated with an ‘improvement index’ ranging from
11-22, with positive impacts identified as long as 8.5 years after programme completion .
11
The programme has also demonstrated successful results when adapted to be delivered to culturally
specific populations. For example: In the USA, the programme has been adapted for Latino/a families,
and in Norway, the programme has been adapted for Somali and Pakistani mothers. Since the first
international implementation in Norway in 1999, GenPMTO has been delivered to more than 50,000
families from a diversity of circumstances, socioeconomic backgrounds and cultures.
Delivery of GenPMTO
GenPMTO can be delivered to caregivers
on an individual family basis, or to groups of caregivers -
12
however the focus of this project is the group-based version . GenPMTO can also be delivered
13
on-line, or in-person. More than one caregiver of a child or young person is able to be involved in the
programme.
13 Training of practitioners for group-based delivery of the programme can be more easily adapted for individual-based
delivery than vice-versa, and so group-based delivery was agreed with delivery partners and programme as a starting point.
12 We use the term ‘caregivers’ to refer to those individuals who are primarily and most consistently responsible for the care
of a child. This is a broad term which includes parents, but also includes other individuals, such as grandparents, aunts,
uncles, foster parents, etc. GenPMTO is designed to be delivered to a range of different types of caregivers and is not
limited strictly to biological parents.
11 An index of 22 means one would expect the median participant in the comparison group who did not receive the
intervention (i.e., someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve
to the point where they would have better outcomes than 72% and worse outcomes than 28% of their peers, if they had
received the intervention.
10 https://guidebook.eif.org.uk/public/files/pdfs/programmes-generation-pmto-group.pdf
9 Fisher, P. A., & Gilliam, K. S. (2012). Research into theory into practice: an overview of family based interventions for child
antisocial behavior developed at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Clin Salud, 23(3), 247-259.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
8
The programme delivery model is to train a first ‘generation’ of practitioners in a given context to full
certification by ISII. A select set of these certified practitioners are trained to train subsequent cohorts
of practitioners, if the programme is to be continued and/or scaled in that context.
Practitioners attend a number of workshops both before and during the delivery of the programme,
with ISII staff supporting and providing feedback to practitioners throughout. ISII staff review
practitioner delivery of the programme in order to grant full certification to practitioners who have met
the required standards of delivery.
Practitioners are trained to deliver the programme to groups of 12-15 caregivers over either 10, 12, or
14 weekly sessions (depending on the delivery context). These sessions are approximately 90 - 120
minutes in length and delivered by 2-3 practitioners.
During the feasibility study stage of this project, practitioners are being trained only in delivering the
14-week programme. While we will aim to have groups of 12-15 caregivers, groups may be as small
as 6, depending on recruitment.
Programme topics and skills
Delivered across 14 weekly sessions, the programme covers 14 essential topics, with sessions being
agenda-driven, responsive, and focusing on skill building to promote effective parenting during times
of transition. Practitioners use active teaching approaches (such as group problem-solving, role-play,
and video modelling) to support caregivers in using positive parenting strategies at home. The topics
on which caregivers receive training are as follows:
1.
Working through change
2.
Encouraging cooperation
3.
Teaching positive behaviour
4.
Observing emotions
5.
Regulating emotions
6.
Active communication
7.
Setting limits
8.
Following through
9.
Communicating with children
10. Problem solving
11. Encouraging cooperation: incentive charts
12. Monitoring children’s activities
13. Promoting school success
14. Putting it all together

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
9
The programme seeks to develop the following core skills with caregivers:
●
Encouraging positive behaviour
●
Limit setting with mild consequences
●
Family problem-solving
●
Positive involvement
●
Supervision/monitoring
●
Identifying/regulating emotions
●
Promoting active communication
●
Promoting success at school
An overview of GenPMTO using the TIDieR framework can be found in Annex A.
Figure 1 below details a high-level Theory of Change for the intervention.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
10
Intervention theory of change
Figure 1 - GenPMTO theory of change

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
11
How the intervention compares with other services and services-as-usual
Parenting programmes such as GenPMTO focus on enhancing parenting practices and behaviour.
These can involve: developing and practising positive discipline techniques, learning age-appropriate
child development skills and milestones, promoting positive interaction between parents and children,
and locating and accessing community services and supports.
Well-known examples of parenting programmes in the UK include Triple P, Incredible Years, and
Strengthening Families. These programmes typically involve educational elements relating to child
development, as well as training elements which support parents to develop specific skills. An initial
survey of the three London boroughs (Brent, Tower Hamlets, and Barking & Dagenham) in which
GenPMTO is anticipated to be delivered suggests that other such parenting programmes are currently
being delivered in these areas.
To the best of our knowledge, while there is strong evidence that other parenting programmes can be
effective at reducing behavioural difficulties (which are associated with later involvement in violence),
there are limited examples of parenting programmes with robust evidence of reducing crime and
violence itself . GenPMTO is a rare example of a parenting programme that has measured these
14
outcomes and robustly demonstrated improvements.
While some other interventions share these characteristics, GenPMTO can be distinguished from
many other parenting programmes on the basis that a) it is more intensive, and is delivered over a
longer period of time, b) has a stronger international evidence-base, and c) has evidence of reducing
arrests.
14 Gaffney, H., Farringdon, D.P. & White, H. (2021). Parenting Programmes: Toolkit technical report. Youth
Endowment Fund: London. Retrieved from:
https://youthendowmentfund.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Parenting-programmes-Technical-Report.pdf

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
12
3. Research Objectives
As outlined above, this protocol focuses on Stages 1 & 2 of the evaluation. We’ve categorised our
research questions for these Stages into four key aims:
1.
Establish whether GenPMTO is able to be suitably adapted for delivery in the UK context.
2.
Establishing whether GenPMTO is feasible to deliver in the UK context.
3.
Establishing whether GenPMTO is acceptable in the UK context.
4.
Establishing whether it would be possible to evaluate the impact of GenPMTO using a
randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the future.
Stage 1 - Adaptation and training
●
The purpose of this Stage is to prepare for initial delivery and the feasibility testing of delivery,
by making any adaptations that may be necessary for the UK context and beginning
practitioner training.
●
The research objectives of this Stage firstly focus on identifying whether the programme may
require adaptations to fit into the UK context and identifying and justifying appropriate
adaptations. Secondly, we want to identify whether sufficient numbers of practitioners can be
recruited and trained within the budget of the project, and to identify the optimal approach to
recruitment and training of future practitioner cohorts to allow delivery at a larger scale.
Stage 2 - Feasibility study
●
The purpose of this Stage is to understand the feasibility of delivering GenPMTO to the
caregivers of children who have been identified as being at risk of violence, through testing
recruitment, retention, fidelity, etc. We will also conduct further adaptation to the programme
as necessary, responding to what we learn from practitioners and caregivers who have
experienced the programme for the first time.
●
The specific research objectives here focus on:
○
Feasibility - Can Barnardo's recruit and retain caregivers of children who meet
inclusion criteria and are at risk of youth violence, and deliver the programme with
fidelity?
○
Acceptability - Is the GenPMTO programme seen as acceptable and valuable by
caregivers and practitioners in a UK context?
○
Evaluability - Firstly, is there sufficient demand and capacity to deliver GenPMTO at a
scale required for a randomised control trial? Secondly, is it feasible to collect outcome
data from participants, which would support robust outcome data collection procedures
during a pilot and/or efficacy trial?
It is worth noting that evaluability is generally not considered a research objective for a
feasibility study (as the Lab and EIF’s 10 steps framework defines a feasibility study ),
15
and the testing of evaluation procedures is usually part of a pilot trial. However, given
that in our case the pilot trial (Stage 3) is intended to be an internal pilot, with its
sample forming part of the efficacy trial (Stage 4), we decided that there were important
15 Asmussen, K., Brims, L., & McBride, T. (2019). 10 steps for evaluation success. London: Early Intervention
Foundation.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
13
research objectives regarding the collection of data that should be addressed during
the feasibility study, to minimise risks to the pilot study .
16
Table 1 below outlines the specific research questions we seek to answer in Stages 1 and 2, to
address the above research objectives. These research questions were developed by the Lab in
consultation with both Barnardo’s and ISII.
16 Note that we will not be trialling or testing randomisation of participants during Stage 2 - Feasibility study.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
14
Table 1: Research objectives and questions addressed during Stages 1 & 2
Project Stage
Research objective(s)
Description of objectives
Research questions
Stage 1 -
Adaptation and
training
Establishing the feasibility of
adapting GenPMTO for the UK
context
Establishing feasibility of
recruitment and training of
practitioners
●
Should GenPMTO be adapted to
appropriately fit the social, cultural
and institutional context in the UK?
●
Can Barnardo’s recruit and train
sufficient numbers of practitioners to
enable initial delivery and evaluation?
Adaptation
●
What changes do practitioners think should be made to the programme
before delivery, to accommodate cultural sensitivities or factors specific
to the UK that should be considered?
Training
●
Can enough of the appropriately qualified personnel be recruited and
trained?
Stage 2 -
Feasibility
study
Establishing feasibility of
delivery
●
Can Barnardo's recruit and retain
parents of children at risk of youth
violence to GenPMTO and deliver the
programme with fidelity?
Recruitment
●
Can Barnardo’s recruit a sufficient number of boroughs to participate in
the programme?
●
What factors affect the recruitment of boroughs?
●
What factors affect the referral process?
●
Which agencies and settings are referring families? How many families
are being referred by each of these agencies/settings?
●
Are there differences between referring agencies/settings in terms of
what proportion of participants are meeting inclusion criteria?
●
Are there differences between referring agencies/settings in terms of
what proportion of participants are taking part in the programme and
completing the programme?
●
Can the boroughs and Barnardo’s recruit and retain a sufficient number
of caregivers with children at risk of youth violence, given other parenting
programmes available?
●
Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria appropriate for identifying and
recruiting sufficient numbers of caregivers with children at risk of youth
violence?
●
What factors affect recruitment and retention of caregivers?

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
15
●
Does recruitment and retention of caregivers vary by ethnicity, gender or
other baseline characteristics?
Fidelity
●
Can GenPMTO be delivered with fidelity to the original programme
design?
●
What factors affect delivering GenPMTO with fidelity?
●
What variations in delivery are appropriate for effective implementation?
Adaptation
●
What further adaptations, if any, need to be made?
●
What are core characteristics of the programme that should not be
adapted, and what are surface characteristics that can be?
●
How could the programme be adapted to improve recruitment and
retention?
●
Are the intervention materials appropriately defined, developed and
suitable for the UK context (both those that are practitioner facing and
those that are parent facing (i.e. training and role specific materials)?
●
Are there any cultural sensitivities or factors specific to the UK that should
be considered, which have not been considered in the previous stage?
Establishing acceptability of
GenPMTO
●
Is the GenPMTO programme seen as
acceptable and valuable by
caregivers and practitioners in a UK
context?
●
Is the GenPMTO programme acceptable to caregivers?
●
Is the programme acceptable to practitioners?
●
What factors affect acceptability by practitioners and caregivers?
●
Do caregivers and practitioners' views vary depending on whether
GenPMTO is delivered virtually, or in-person?
Establishing evaluability of
GenPMTO
●
Do we have enough confidence in the
feasibility of a randomised controlled
trial, particularly in terms of
recruitment, randomisation and
outcome data collection, to justify a
continuation of the trial to the internal
●
Is outcome data collection possible and sufficient?
●
What factors affect ease of outcome data collection?
●
What factors affect the completeness and quality of outcome data
collected?

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
16
pilot?
●
How could the approach to outcome data collection be improved to
increase the ease of data collection, and the completeness and quality of
data collected?
●
Is there sufficient demand for the intervention to reach the scale required
for a well-powered RCT?

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
17
4. Monitoring and success criteria
We will use monitoring criteria throughout Stages 1 & 2 for two purposes:
1.
To monitor if the project is proceeding as expected, allowing for us to make adjustments or
pause the work if needed.
2.
At the end of the feasibility study, to make recommendations to the Youth Endowment Fund as
to whether progression to Stage 3 (pilot trial) should be pursued. At the end of the Stage 3, to
make recommendations as to whether Stage 4 (efficacy trial) should be pursued.
We will use RAG (Red, Amber, Green) ratings to rate the progress of target criteria, on a monthly
basis. Criteria meeting red or amber cut-off scores will prompt the following changes to our approach:
●
Criteria with Amber ratings will indicate reviewing or adjusting delivery.
●
Criteria with Red ratings will indicate pausing delivery for a period of time to carefully assess
what changes would be required to justify resuming delivery.
Management information will be obtained on a regular basis to inform oversight of these criteria. As
there are limited opportunities to make substantive changes to the content and delivery of GenPMTO
between the pilot and efficacy trials, these monitoring criteria in the earlier stages of the study are
particularly important.
The quantitative monitoring criteria used to monitor feasibility-related objectives are described in Table
2 below. While the criteria below offer guidance for the progression of the evaluation on the basis of
quantitative assessments, these will also be complemented by qualitative measures, such as ongoing
practitioner feedback and interviews with practitioners and caregivers.
The below monitoring criteria were developed iteratively in consultation with both Barnardo’s and ISII,
and help to ensure that the study does not progress from one phase to the next without sufficient
evidence of overall acceptability and feasibility.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
18
Table 2: Feasibility-related monitoring criteria listed by project stage
Project stage
Criterion
Description
Target criteria
RAG scores
Stage 1 -
Adaptation and
training
(Criteria for
progression to
next Stage)
Recruitment
Proportion of required practitioners recruited
within c. 3-5 months of Stage 1 beginning
12 practitioners recruited
Red: <8 recruited
Amber: 8 - 11 recruited
Green: 12 recruited
Training I
Number of practitioners enrolled in training in
GenPMTO methodology within c.3-5 months of
recruitment formally launching
12 practitioners enrolled
Red: <8 enrolled
Amber: 8 - 11 enrolled
Green: 12 enrolled
Acceptability
Proportion of practitioners and caregivers who
broadly indicate that GenPMTO will be
acceptable to both practitioners and caregivers
in a UK context
>60% practitioners
and
>60% caregivers
Red: <60% of target
Amber: 60-79% of target
Green: 80-100% of target
Stage 2 -
Feasibility study
(Criteria for
progression to
next Stage)
Referral volume
The volume of referrals to the programme
received by Barnardo’s on a monthly basis
> 5 referrals per month
(average across referral
months, considered for
each borough involved in
delivering GenPMTO
during the feasibility
study)
Red: Less than 3
Amber: 3-4
Green: 5 or more
Referral
suitability
The proportion of families referred to the
programme who have a child in the eligible
age range and who meets all other eligibility
criteria
As per RAG score
Red: <40% of caregivers
Amber: 50-69% of caregivers
Green: 70-100% of caregivers

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
19
Caregiver
take-up
The percentage of families who are eligible,
and offered inclusion in the delivery of
GenPMTO in the feasibility study, who take up
the service
As per RAG score
Red: <20% of eligible families
Amber: 20-50% of eligible families
Green: 50 - 100% of eligible families
Training II
Number of practitioners who complete the
programme of training offered during the
feasibility study stage17
12 practitioners complete all
training requirements during
the feasibility study stage
Red: <7
Amber: 7-9
Green: 10-12
Fidelity
The ISII programme experts assess
practitioner sessions according to the FIMP
(Fidelity of Implementation Rating System)
measure developed by ISII.18
At the end of the feasibility
study, practitioners have
received an aggregate mean
FIMP score of at least 419
Red: <60% of practitioners
Amber: 60-79% of practitioners
Green: 80-100% of practitioners
Outcome data
collection
Proportion of caregivers and their child/ren
completing outcome measures during the
feasibility study
As per RAG score
Red: <40% of caregivers
Amber: 40-75% of caregivers
Green: 75-100% of caregivers
19 A FIMP score of 4 is considered to be the lowest score for what is considered acceptable implementation fidelity
18 ISII will monitor the delivery of GenPMTO during the feasibility trial, and assess the fidelity with which practitioners deliver each session of the GenPMTO programme.
These fidelity ratings are captured in ISII’s bespoke FIMP system and will be shared (in a de-identified format) with the Lab.
17 Practitioner training involves participating in workshops and coaching sessions, as part of the accreditation process. However, accreditation is contingent on
practitioners practising delivering GenPMTO to multiple cohorts of caregivers, which may not be possible during the length of the feasibility study. Therefore this
monitoring criteria is focused on completion of training elements which take place during the feasibility study, and does not refer to practitioners’ accreditation status.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
20
5. Design and methodology
Stage 1 - Adaptation and training
Overview
‘Adaptation’ here refers to a process of thoughtful and deliberate alteration of the design or delivery of
the intervention to improve its fit or effectiveness in this context. In particular, training materials for
practitioners and teaching materials for caregivers may need to be adapted to ensure that they are
relevant to both a UK audience generally, and to the target population specifically.
Given the limited opportunity to make adaptations after the feasibility stage, ensuring the content and
approach of GenPMTO is appropriately adapted to meet the needs of UK caregivers, prior to Stage 3
(pilot trial) is important.
Design
The adaptation process will be split into two phases;
●
Initial adaptation - occurring prior to delivery of GenPMTO.
●
Further adaptation - occurring through a series of workshops with practitioners and
caregivers during and after the feasibility study (as described in the Further adaptation
section).
Whilst we had initially intended to conduct one larger adaptation exercise prior to delivery, we decided
to split adaptation activity over time. This was informed by feedback from the programme developers
that adaptation would benefit from practitioners’ having completed formal training in GenPMTO and
having learned the model on a deeper level by delivering the curriculum.
Any adaptations to the delivery or content of GenPMTO, and their rationale, will be recorded by the
Lab. This process of adaptation will be undertaken as a collaboration between ISII (as the ultimate
owners of the GenPMTO model), Barnardo’s, and the Lab.
Initial adaptation
The purpose of this phase was to prepare for delivery of GenPMTO by making an initial round of ‘light
touch’ adaptations to the programme prior to delivery and practitioner training. Given that GenPMTO
has a rich evidence base across several countries, significant adaptations to the programme were
considered unlikely. However, this phase was used to ensure that it was as suitable as possible for
delivery in a UK context.
For the initial light touch adaptations, the ISII team and a team of practitioners from Barnardo’s
reviewed the existing GenPMTO practitioner manual and caregiver materials and made changes to
those materials . These sorts of light touch adaptations focused on:
20
●
Changes to language: modifying spelling from American to UK English (e.g. “behaviour”
instead of “behavior”)
20 This phase of adaptation occurred prior to the publication of this protocol.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
21
●
Changes to cultural references: for example changing ‘$10 role play’ to ‘£10 role play’.
●
Changes to images in materials to be more culturally relevant.
Reviewers were prompted to read through the GenPMTO programme materials and leave comments
on these documents with any feedback or thoughts. If changes were suggested, practitioners were
asked to provide a brief rationale about why the change would potentially improve the programme’s
chances of being effective and acceptable in the UK.
The specific prompts we shared with reviewers are described below in Table 3.
Table 3: Areas of adaptation and prompts for practitioners
Adaptation areas
Specific prompts
Language
●
Is the language of the materials appropriate for parents and children
here in the UK?
●
Are there more suitable phrases to communicate ideas and build
rapport with caregivers
Culture and norms
●
Are examples in programme materials up-to-date and culturally
appropriate (e.g. referencing family leisure activities which are more
common to families in London, or statistics such as prevalence of knife
crime, rather than gun violence)? Do these help participants to
personalise the information?
●
Does the programme's content reflect US cultural norms and values
(especially those regarding child development, child-rearing and
disciplining practices, socially desirable behaviours etc.) rather than
UK ones, which might require some changes?
●
Are there differences in social norms which might change the way
caregivers respond to different elements of the programme?
One example of where social norms may differ and where adaptation
may be required relates to GenPMTO requiring lots of active
participation, and activities like roleplay that might require confidence
and being comfortable with 'putting yourself out there'. This might
come more naturally to families from the US rather than UK families -
would UK families need additional support or encouragement to
engage in these activities?
Participant needs
●
Does the current programme meet the needs of caregivers who may
be referred to GenPMTO here in the UK? For example:
○
English language fluency
○
Literacy levels
○
Accessibility needs
Contextual factors
●
How might delivery of GenPMTO be affected or influenced by external
adverse events which may be likely in the UK (e.g. teacher’s strikes,
train strikes)?

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
22
●
How might caregivers’ existing or previous relationships with other
services and organisations (e.g. schools/Pupil Referral Units) affect
elements of GenPMTO?
●
Are there any legal or regulatory requirements which might affect how
GenPMTO is delivered here in the UK
Training
The initial training of 7-12 practitioners will begin in August 2023, with training delivered by ISII
personnel. After a 5-day training workshop facilitated by ISII, practitioners will begin working with
families, as they implement what they have learned (e.g. session content, active teaching and
co-facilitation strategies, process skills to promote engagement and cohesion). Practitioners will
receive observation-based coaching on their group sessions. This activity provides opportunities for
practitioners to reflect on their work, seek and receive feedback, practice session content, and
prepare for upcoming sessions.
GenPMTO practitioner training stipulates that generally after 4-6 weeks of delivering sessions to
caregivers, practitioners attend a second 5-day training workshop. Following this second workshop,
practitioners will continue to develop by implementing what they have learned in the training sessions
and receive observation-based coaching, with ISII staff reviewing their sessions with caregivers on a
regular basis .
21
Lab staff will monitor both practitioner attendance at these training workshops, and self-reported
practitioner satisfaction with the content and delivery of GenPMTO. This is of relevance for evaluating
the feasibility of delivering GenPMTO as it relates to both the ‘Recruitment’ and ‘Training I’ monitoring
criteria outlined in Table 2. If the recruitment and/or training of practitioners in the initial stages of the
study proves to be more challenging than anticipated, it may be a sign that one or more elements of
programme delivery are either not feasible in a UK context, or need to change in order for the study to
proceed to the next stage.
21 After a sufficient number of groups and sessions that have been positively reviewed by ISII fidelity raters, ISII will award
GenPMTO ‘certification’ to a practitioner.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
23
Stage 2 - Feasibility study
Design
As detailed in Methods and data collection section below, the feasibility study is designed to obtain an
in-depth understanding of the experiences of a range of participants, stakeholders and delivery
partners involved with delivering GenPMTO. The emphasis of the feasibility study is on understanding
the nature of delivering GenPMTO in a UK context. It is essential that the feasibility study identifies as
many issues with recruitment, retention, fidelity, and acceptability as possible, as there will be less
scope for adjustment between the Stage 3 - Pilot trial and Stage 4 - Efficacy trial.
We will conduct rigorous in-depth qualitative research to answer our research questions about how
feasible and acceptable delivery of GenPMTO is in the UK context. To supplement this rich qualitative
data, we will also gather and analyse administrative data about referral rates, retention, and fidelity, to
assess feasibility of delivery on an ongoing basis. The feasibility study will also investigate
practitioners and caregivers' views on the programme when delivered in different modes (online and
in-person), to inform decision-making about how to deliver in future stages of this evaluation. Whilst
there are differing session lengths of GenPMTO, these all cover the same content, in varying levels of
detail.
We will also invite caregivers receiving GenPMTO, and their children, to complete separate outcome
surveys. All caregivers receiving GenPMTO will be invited to complete outcome surveys during
programme delivery (both at baseline and post-intervention). We will also invite caregivers’ children to
complete a separate outcome survey, at the end of the programme delivery (i.e. post-intervention).
These surveys will be used to measure the impact of the programme in Stages 3 & 4 (should the
evaluation progress to the pilot and efficacy trial stages).
The outcome measures for caregivers are:
●
Parenting Practices Interview (self-reported measure)
●
Parental Locus of Control-Short Form Revised (self-report)
The outcome measures for CYPs include:
●
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (parent report of child)
●
Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory (parent report of child)
●
Self-reported delinquency scale (child self-report measure)
●
Victimisation sub-scale of the Problem Behaviour Frequency Scale (child self-report measure)
However, for the purposes of the feasibility study, we are administering these surveys primarily to
obtain information about response and completion rates, ahead of the next stage of the evaluation.
We will not be performing any impact analyses on the outcome measures of interest in the
feasibility study. Ethical considerations of our approach are outlined in the Ethics and data
protection section of this protocol.
Delivery of GenPMTO during the feasibility study
Upon completion of the first 5-day training workshop for practitioners, and assuming the recruitment of
a sufficient number of eligible families, the delivery of GenPMTO during the feasibility study will begin
in Autumn 2023, lasting for approximately 3-6 months.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
24
This will involve 2-3 newly-trained practitioners delivering GenPMTO, to 1-2 cohorts of caregivers. .
GenPMTO will be delivered across three London boroughs (Barking & Dagenham, Brent, and Tower
Hamlets). Practitioners will aim to deliver GenPMTO to one cohort of caregivers online, alongside an
in-person mode of delivery to another cohort of caregivers.
Participants
Overview
We are involving a range of people involved in the delivery of GenPMTO during the feasibility study.
The details of participants are outlined in the Table 4 below.
Table 4: Sample size for participants involved in qualitative research
Participant group
Sample size
Number of
participants
Caregivers receiving
GenPMTO
●
3-4 caregivers
per delivery site who have
22
been referred to GenPMTO23
9-12
Barnardo’s practitioners
delivering GenPMTO
●
4 full-time practitioners
●
8 part-time practitioners24
12
Barnardo’s managers leading
on delivery
●
2 managers responsible for delivery across
the three sites
2
Referrers from statutory and
non-statutory organisations
●
1 staff member from a referring
agency/setting, who has been involved in
referring caregivers to Barnardo’s for
GenPMTO across each delivery site
(feasibility study expected to involve two
referring agencies)
6
Total participants
29-32
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for caregivers
24 Barnardo’s have recruited 12 practitioners to deliver GenPMTO as part of the feasibility study (4 full-time staff,
and 8 part-time staff). We intend to interview all practitioners involved in delivering GenPMTO.
23 Caregivers are referred to GenPMTO by schools or services such as Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), Youth
offending teams, Violence Reduction Units, third sector organisations, and possible social care services due to
their child having behavioural challenges and/or involvement in violence.
22 We may also seek to oversample the number of caregivers we will interview (by one or two additional
caregivers), in order to mitigate against caregivers withdrawing from interviews, or not being able to attend. In
the event that all caregivers attend interviews, we will proceed to interview all these caregivers, and provide
them with reimbursement.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
25
We have carefully considered the inclusion and exclusion criteria for caregivers participating in the
feasibility study (including receiving GenPMTO). Our aim in developing this criteria are to:
1.
Include caregivers who stand to benefit most from GenPMTO
2.
Exclude any caregivers for whom the programme may not be best suited, or may be at an
increased risk of harm if they were to participate
One of our objectives for the feasibility study is to test these criteria and make a judgement about
whether they need to be adjusted for subsequent stages of the study. We may find that they are too
inclusive - and we therefore aren’t receiving a sufficiently vulnerable sample. Conversely, these may
be too exclusive and cause difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers to make the evaluation viable.
Below, we have outlined the inclusion and exclusion criteria which we will test in the feasibility study.
Inclusion criteria
Caregivers are eligible to participate in the feasibility study (including receiving GenPMTO) if they:
●
Have a CYP between the ages of 8-14.
●
Are the primary caregiver (i.e. spend the most time with the CYP and are available to care for
them).
●
Live within one of the boroughs in which GenPMTO is being delivered (during the feasibility
study).
And, if one of or more of the following is present:
●
CYPs have engaged in criminal behaviour, such as breaking the law or “offending behaviour” –
for both non-violent and violent crimes.
●
CYPs have engaged in violent and challenging behaviour (including within the home, e.g.
against parents and/or siblings).
●
CYPs have been reported as bullying other individual(s) in or outside of school settings.
●
CYPs have low attendance at school (<50% within the last academic year).
●
CYPs have been excluded from school within the last academic year.
●
CYPs are engaged in substance abuse/misuse (e.g. drugs, alcohol)
●
CYPs are at risk of involvement by gangs.
●
CYPs are at risk of exploitation, or negative influence, by criminal peers.
●
CYPs have a sibling(s) that has entered into the criminal justice system.
Exclusion criteria
Caregivers will be excluded from the feasibility study it at least any of the following are present:
●
Caregiver(s) have received a parenting programme in the last two months, or are currently
receiving one.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
26
●
Caregiver(s) and CYP does not have working proficiency in English, such that participation in
GenPMTO and research activities would be unfeasible.
●
Family has plans to move out of the borough within the 10-14 week delivery timeline, and thus
may not be available for full delivery of GenPMTO during the feasibility study phase.
●
Severe developmental delay for caregiver or CYP which may prevent caregiver from attending
GenPMTO delivery sessions, implementing GenPMTO parenting strategies, or participating in
evaluation.
●
Caregiver(s) and/or CYPs are actively homicidal, suicidal or psychotic.25
●
Problem sexual behaviour is the central behavioural concern for child/young person. 26
●
Significant child protection concern (i.e. basic needs of children are not being met by
caregivers.27
Referral pathway for caregivers
Referral services within local areas (such as Youth Offending Teams, or Pupil Referral Units) will refer
caregivers/families to Barnardo’s as the implementation partner. Referring agencies will have been
provided with information regarding GenPMTO, including the inclusion and exclusion criteria for
GenPMTO, and will initially screen for suitable caregivers to be referred to Barnardo’s.
Upon receiving referrals, Barnardo’s will check whether families/caregivers referred to GenPMTO, are
suitable to receive the programme. If they are not, Barnardo’s will not include them in this study and
they will not receive GenPMTO. However they will be signposted or referred to pre-existing
‘service-as-usual’ (SAU) support provisions.
If a family is eligible to receive GenPMTO, and the caregiver(s) consent to participating in the
feasibility study, they will receive GenPMTO. Those receiving GenPMTO will still be able to access
services as usual if they wish. Barnardo’s has been in discussion with the relevant contacts in local
authorities to ensure that GenPMTO would be appropriately signposted both to appropriate local
authority staff, and to suitable caregivers.
Figure 2 below outlines the proposed flow for caregivers participating in the feasibility study.
27 As above.
26 As above.
25 This exclusion is considered to indicate requiring escalation/referral to appropriate services (rather than
enrollment in GenPMTO).

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
27
Figure 2 - Caregiver flow diagram for feasibility study
Methods and data collection
We have devised a mixed-methods approach to answer our research objectives for the feasibility
study. We will conduct both qualitative and quantitative research activities to evaluate the feasibility,
acceptability and evaluability of GenPMTO in the UK context. The following section describes these
activities in detail. Table 7 and Table 8, at the end of this section, provide a summary of the qualitative
and quantitative research activities we will conduct, as well as the data that will be collected during
the feasibility study.
Qualitative research activities
As outlined above in the Design section for Stage 2 - Feasibility Study, we will be conducting
semi-structured in-depth interviews with a range of people involved in the delivery of the GenPMTO
programme, including:
1.
Caregivers receiving GenPMTO28
2.
Barnardo’s practitioners delivering GenPMTO29
3.
Barnardo’s managers leading on delivery of GenPMTO
29 Practitioners will be provided with a choice whether to have an interview over the phone or via an online-video
platform of their choice (Google Meet, Zoom, or MS Teams). If remote interviews are not possible, we will
accommodate in-person interviews (at a local Barnardo’s office).
28 Caregivers will be provided with a choice whether to have an in-person interview (at the venue at which they
are receiving GenPMTO), or to have a remote online remote interview (i.e. over the phone, or online via a
video-call platform of their choice (Google Meet, Zoom, or MS Teams).

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
28
4.
Referrers from statutory and non-statutory organisations
In these interviews, we will gather as much information as we can about perceptions of the content
and delivery of GenPMTO and the context it was delivered in. The rich qualitative data we generate
from these interviews will inform the feasibility study by:
●
Providing a detailed understanding of the complexity and nuances of programme delivery
across the different phases.
●
Identifying contextual factors that may influence the implementation and hence the
effectiveness of GPMTO in UK contexts.
●
Generating information that can be used to inform programme implementation and aid
decision-making.
Experienced qualitative researchers from BIT will conduct the qualitative research activities. A
summary of types of interviews and data collected from different participant groups are outlined below
in Table 5.
Table 5: Overview of interviews with participants groups
Participant group
Interview type and length
Data collected
1. Caregivers
Interview
(60 minutes)
●
Caregivers’ perception of the quality of the
content and programme delivery, barriers to
engagement and areas for improvement
2. Barnardo’s
practitioners
Paired interview
(60 minutes)
●
Practitioners' perception of the content
(including any adaptations), delivery and
factors that impacted on implementing,
GenPMTO
●
Practitioners' perceptions of acceptability,
quality of content, and quality of delivery for
GenPMTO
●
Practitioners’ perception of the fidelity process
/ consultation with model developers
●
Practitioners' perceptions of programme
feasibility to be delivered with fidelity at scale
3. Barnardo’s
managers
Interview
(45 minutes)
●
Managers’ perception of the programme,
impact on practitioners, fit with other priorities
and factors that impacted on implementation
4. Referrers from
statutory and
non-statutory
organisations
Interview
(45 minutes)
●
Referrers' views about the programme and fit
with their organisation’s priorities / strategic
aims and how it intersects with other services
in the area
●
Feedback on the effectiveness of the referral
process
Caregiver interviews
Due to the nature of the programme, caregivers (and by association, children) might be at different
stages of change / progress. Interviews would offer caregivers the opportunity to use a confidential

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
29
space to discuss their views on the content of GenPMTO and its delivery without caregivers feeling
pressure to conform to group norms that might occur in focus groups, e.g. expressing opinions that
are perceived as favourable or acceptable, or avoid expressing views that may be perceived as
unpopular or controversial. Interviews are also generally easier to schedule and offer participants
more flexibility of timings to fit around their responsibilities. Interviews will:
●
Gain insight into caregivers’ experiences with the intervention, including their level of
engagement and satisfaction with the activities and how it was delivered.
●
Explore parents' perceptions of how it has impacted on them and their parenting.
●
Explore any barriers or facilitators to participation in the intervention.
●
Gather suggestions for improving the intervention in the future.
We will conduct interviews with 3-4 caregivers per delivery site and will be conducted within 20
working days after programme delivery has ended.
We will purposively sample across key characteristics, in order to determine the acceptability and
feasibility of GenPMTO across a range of caregiver characteristics (as much as possible, within our
sample size). These characteristics will be discussed in collaboration with ISII and Barnardo’s, but are
anticipated to include the following characteristics outlined in Table 6. We will aim to achieve the
quotas specified below, but what is achievable will depend on the participants who are referred into
the programme.
Table 6: Sampling and monitoring criteria for caregiver interviews
Characteristic
Quota / monitoring criteria
Age of caregiver
At least 2 below 35
At least 2 above 35
Gender of caregiver
At least 1 male caregiver
At least 1 female caregiver
Age of CYP
At least two caregiver with a CYP under 10
At least two caregiver with a CYP between 10 - 12
At least two caregiver with a CYP between 12 - 14
Type of caregiver (e.g. single
parent, extended biological
family, non-biological family
etc.)
At least 2 single parents across sample
Monitor for other types of caregivers
Ethnicity
At least 3 caregivers from BAME groups
Educational attainment
Monitor for highest level of attainment
Experiences with previous
intervention programmes
Monitor for those that have had experience of at least one other
intervention

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
30
Reason for referral
Monitor for referral reason
Barnardo’s practitioner interviews (paired)
We will conduct paired interviews with all practitioners
who have been involved in delivering
30
GenPMTO during the feasibility study. Interviews will be conducted within 10 working days after
programme delivery has ended.
Paired interviews are efficient and can illuminate different perspectives and insights as each person
may have a unique viewpoint or experience related to the delivery of GenPMTO. The format will also
provide an opportunity for clarification, where one practitioner can provide additional context or
information that the other may have missed or overlooked. The interviews will explore:
●
Practitioners' perception of the content (and any adaptations) and appropriateness for UK
context (acceptability).
●
The delivery method and its appropriateness for UK context (acceptability).
●
Perceived barriers and facilitators to caregivers engaging well with GenPMTO (acceptability).
●
Feedback on any recruitment and retention challenges (feasibility).
●
Factors that impacted on implementation (e.g. allocation of resources, logistics) - i.e. was the
programme implemented as intended? (feasibility).
●
Practitioners’ perception of the fidelity process / consultation with model developers.
(acceptability and feasibility).
Barnardo’s manager interviews
We will conduct up to 2 interviews with Barnardo’s managers responsible for delivery across the
three sites.
They will be interviewed within 10 working days of programme delivery. The aim of these
31
interviews is to understand how programme delivery impacts practitioners and teams, specifically:
●
The resource allocation needed to successfully deliver GenPMTO, e.g. financial, logistical, and
if these were planned in advance.
●
Barriers and facilitators for successful delivery.
●
Impact on staff (e.g. emotional demands).
●
Acceptability of the programme.
●
Considerations of what would make a sustainable programme in the longer term.
31 We understand that Barnardo’s will only recruit 2 managers to deliver GenPMTO during the feasibility study.
30 Barnardo’s have recruited 12 practitioners to deliver GenPMTO as part of the feasibility study (4 full-time staff,
and 8 part-time staff). We intend to interview all practitioners involved in delivering GenPMTO. We note that
some part-time staff may not have had the opportunity to deliver all 14 sessions of the GenPMTO programme,
but will have experience in delivering some GenPMTO sessions.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
31
Referrer interviews
At each delivery site, we will conduct interviews with 1 staff member from 2 referring agencies
within each borough
who have been referring caregivers to Barnardo’s to participate in the feasibility
32
study. We expect a total of 6 interviews to be conducted with staff from referring agencies in the
feasibility study (from statutory and non-statutory organisations). These interviews will explore
referrers’ perceptions of the programme and the referral process. Specifically, we will explore:
●
Factors involved in making a referral decision.
●
Ease of referral, including speaking to caregivers and referrer’s role in supporting
engagement,
●
The process of making a referral, and whether any adaptations should be made.
●
The perception of GenPMTO, feedback from caregivers, the fit with the local cultural and
social context, and the alignment with existing policies and practices (i.e. GenPMTO goals and
referrers’ organisational needs).
Qualitative feedback on outcome survey
As noted in the Design section, we will be administering outcome surveys to participants. However,
our primary aim in administering these outcome surveys is to identify how feasible it is to administer
these surveys, the ease of completing these surveys for participants, the completeness and quality of
data collection.
To help understand participant’s experience of completing outcome measures, we will also provide a
free-text feedback box, at the end of the outcome survey. This will allow participants to provide us with
qualitative feedback on how easy it was to complete the survey, or if they experienced any other
issues or difficulties in completing the outcome survey.
Quantitative research activities
Outcome survey
All caregivers receiving GenPMTO will be invited to complete an outcome survey during programme
delivery. As noted above, while this survey will be used to measure the impact of the programme in
Stages 3 & 4, in the feasibility study we are administering outcome surveys to obtain information
about response and completion rates. Additional detail on how we will calculate response and
completion rates are noted in the Quantitative analysis section below.
These quantitative metrics will help us to identify whether particular measures, or aspects of the
survey have lower rates of engagement of completion than others, and/or whether caregivers with
certain demographic characteristics engage less with any aspect of the survey. This in turn, will allow
us to adapt the outcome survey in advance of the pilot and efficacy trials, and/or make more of an
effort to explain the purpose and content of the survey to caregivers if necessary.
Administrative data analysis
We will analyse administrative data from the following sources:
32 For the feasibility study, we expect two referring agencies to be involved. In subsequent stages, this number will likely
increase.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
32
1.
GenPMTO referral forms
2.
Barnardo’s programme administration data
(including a brief survey measure administered to
33
caregivers by Barnardo’s to assess satisfaction with the programme)
3.
ISII fidelity monitoring data34
Based on this administrative date we will generate descriptive statistics on the following variables:
●
Proportion of practitioners recruited to deliver GenPMTO
●
Proportion of practitioners enrolled in training to deliver GenPMTO
●
Number of referrals received by Barnardo’s for caregivers to receive GenPMTO
●
Proportion of referred caregivers deemed eligible for GenPMTO
●
The proportion of eligible caregivers who are offered GenPMTO who accept this offer (take-up
of services)
●
Retention / drop-out rates of caregivers receiving GenPMTO
●
Retention / drop-out rates of practitioners delivering GenPMTO
●
Attendance data from GenPMTO delivery
●
Caregivers’ perception of the quality of the content and delivery
●
Programme dosage data35
●
Ratings of practitioner fidelity
Incentives
We will be compensating caregivers for their time spent participating in the feasibility study research
activities. We are proposing providing caregivers with shopping vouchers for each of the following
research activities:36
●
£10 voucher for time taken to complete the outcome survey (estimated to take 25-30 minutes).
●
£20 voucher to participate in a 60-minute interview.
If a caregiver consents to take part and attends the interview, but then changes their mind and
withdraws either during or afterwards, they will still receive the incentive.
In addition to providing incentives to caregivers, we will attempt to minimise the impact of attrition by:
36We have proposed providing vouchers to participants rather than cash amounts, as providing cash risks
impacting on caregivers’ eligibility for other services and benefits.
35 ISII capture the level of content covered by practitioners in each session, by asking practitioners to input this
information at the end of each session, into their FIMP system.
34 ISII will systematically capture information regarding the delivery of GenPMTO during the feasibility study, to
assess the fidelity with which it is being delivered by Barnardo’s. This information is provided to ISII by
Barnardo’s and includes video recordings of practitioners delivering GenPMTO.
33 Barnardo's systematically collects key delivery information throughout programme recruitment and delivery.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
33
1.
Ensuring that evaluation activities are designed to be low-impact in terms of burden and time
2.
Where needed, utilising the relationships that Barnardo's has built with local authorities to
facilitate access and cooperation with staff and referring agencies
We will not be providing incentives to other participant groups (i.e. Barnardo’s staff and referrers).
Barnardo’s staff are being funded to deliver and help facilitate the evaluation of GenPMTO. Nor do we
expect their participation in the evaluation to add significant burden beyond what is already required in
their role that supports the delivery of GenPMTO. Additionally, given the Lab is also acting as the
funding body for this evaluation, providing compensation to these stakeholders risks being perceived
as providing an incentive to (intentionally or otherwise) bias GenPMTO stakeholders’ responses.
GenPMTO is being provided to local authorities at no additional cost, therefore participating in
research activities is considered an in-kind contribution to the cost of the evaluation.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
34
Data analysis
Qualitative analysis
To analyse the depth interviews, we will employ a version of the framework approach which is widely
used in applied social research and draws on the approach set out by Ritchie et al (2014). This
approach is similar to other widely used thematic analysis approaches and aims to derive meaningful
themes and patterns from the qualitative data. However, rather than focusing on coding the data, this
approach involves summarising, or ‘charting’ the data into a thematic framework. The strength of the
framework approach is that it enables systematic and comprehensive analysis of the complete data
set in a manageable way.
Transcription
All interview recordings will be transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and facilitate subsequent
analysis. Transcripts will be anonymised by assigning unique identifiers to each participant, replacing
their names or any identifying information.
Familiarisation with the data
The research team will thoroughly read and familiarise themselves with key interview transcripts and
observation notes - what is known as deep hanging out in the data. This step ensures that whatever
headings are selected for the thematic framework are grounded in the data.
Data management
The first stage of data management will be for the research team to convene and discuss the possible
themes that are emerging from the data, under which the data will be sorted. These themes will be
both deductive (guided by the research questions and topic guides) and inductive (those that emerge
from the data). Once the research team has agreed the key themes and sub-themes, these will be
used to set up an initial thematic framework. For ease, this will be done in Excel/Google docs. The
framework will be set up so that each individual sheet represents a theme and the columns within it
represent the sub-themes. The rows represent individual participants. Each participant group will have
their own thematic framework, so one for caregivers, another for practitioners etc. In some cases, the
framework approach requires indexing and sorting of the data where the themes in the framework are
used to annotate and label the data in the transcripts. However, since there will be a clear structure to
the depth interviews, it is anticipated that the data will already be well ordered and this step will
therefore not be needed.
Once the frameworks are set up, the data from each transcript will be ‘charted’ or summarised into
them. The summaries will be written in the third person and aim to capture the key views of the
participant under each of the themes represented by columns. The researchers doing the charting will
remain as close as possible to the language used by the research participants. As the data is charted,
researchers will identify key verbatim quotes from the transcripts and add these to the framework in
italics to be used in the report if needed. Charting will be done by several researchers who will all read
and quality assure each other’s charting to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach.
Throughout the data management stage, researchers will be mindful of revisiting the thematic
framework and adjusting it where needed. For example, adding new sub-themes that were previously
not discussed or collapsing themes together where necessary.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
35
Analysis and interpretation
The first stage of analysis is descriptive. This will involve looking at each theme in turn and exploring
the range of views held under that theme with a view to developing categories. This will be done by
grouping the views into clusters and exploring the properties of each of these clusters until clear
categories can be developed. Given the nature of the feasibility study and the size and likely diversity
of the sample, it is highly likely that the majority of the analysis will be descriptive and aim to clearly
map out the range and diversity of views that exist within each participant population on the key areas
relevant to the research questions. However, where possible the researchers will proceed to a higher
level of analysis and aim to look for patterns and linkages in the data. This stage will be facilitated by
the framework approach as it easily allows the researcher to look both within and across cases to see
how different parts of the data set are connected. The sorts of patterns and linkages that might be
explored include links between particular experiences of the intervention and how those link to views
or outcomes, or the research team may explore links between particular characteristics of the
participants and their views and experiences. Where possible, the research team will then go on to
look for explanations for the categories and linkages that have been found.
Throughout the analysis process, the research team will remain in contact with each other, sharing
and testing emerging findings and ensuring that the analysis process remains rooted in the data.
Quantitative analysis
Outcome survey
We will calculate the following metrics based on data collected from outcome surveys administered to
caregivers, and their children:
●
Response rates - this will involve calculating as a percentage the number of participants who
started the survey, compared to the total number of participants who were invited to complete
the survey.
●
Completion rates - this will involve calculating as a percentage the number of participants who
finished the survey, compared to the total number of participants who started the survey.
We will report overall survey response and completion rates, as well as completion rates for each
specific outcome measure. We will also calculate the response and completion rates, and the time
taken to complete the survey (online only) for participants groups with specific demographic
characteristics, including (but not limited to); age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status.
Administrative data analysis
As noted in the our Quantitative research activities section, this will include the descriptive statistics
on key variables including:
●
Proportion of practitioners recruited to deliver GenPMTO - this will involve calculating, as
a percentage, the number of recruited practitioners, compared to the total number of
practitioners identified in Training criterion within the Monitoring and success criteria.
●
Proportion of practitioners enrolled in training to deliver GenPMTO - this will involve
calculating, as a percentage, the number of practitioners enrolled in training, compared to the
total number of recruited practitioners.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
36
●
Number of referrals received by Barnardo’s for caregivers to receive GenPMTO - this
will involve identifying the total count of referrals received during the feasibility study, as well
the mean and standard deviation of monthly referral totals across the feasibility study.
●
Proportion of referred caregivers deemed eligible for GenPMTO - this will involve
calculating, as a percentage, the number of caregivers deemed eligible for GenPMTO,
compared to to the total number of referred caregivers.
●
Proportion of eligible caregivers who are offered GenPMTO who accept this offer
(take-up of services) - this will involve calculating, as a percentage, the number of caregivers
who consent to take part in the feasibility study, compared to to the total number of caregivers
who are considered eligible to receive and are offered the programme.
●
Retention / drop-out rates of caregivers receiving GenPMTO - this will involve calculating,
as a percentage, the number of caregivers who complete a program, compared to the total
number of caregivers who consent to receiving GenPMTO.37
●
Retention / drop-out rates of practitioners delivering GenPMTO - this will involve
calculating, as a percentage, the number of practitioners who have completed relevant training
and are able to deliver GenPMTO, compared to the total number of practitioners who were
enrolled in training.
●
Attendance rate at GenPMTO sessions - this will involve calculating, as a percentage, the
number of caregivers who attended each GenPMTO session, compared to the number of
caregivers who were expected (i.e. based on caregiver take-up/enrollment) to attend these
sessions, as well the mean and standard deviation across the feasibility study.
●
Caregivers’ perception of the quality of the content and delivery - this will involve
calculating the mean and standard deviation of scores, based on a short feedback survey
administered by Barnardo’s.
●
Programme dosage data - this will involve calculating the mean percentage of actual content
delivered in GenPMTO sessions to a cohort of caregivers, compared to the amount of planned
content to be delivered, as captured and recorded by ISII in their FIMP system.
●
Ratings of practitioner fidelity - this will involve calculating the mean of practitioners’ fidelity
scores whilst delivering a full GenPMTO programme, as captured by ISII in their FIMP system.
In addition, we will conduct analysis of administrative data to test whether any of these metrics vary
by key participant characteristics available in the data (e.g. borough, caregiver gender, child gender,
caregiver ethnicity, child ethnicity, family socioeconomic status, child’s age, whether the survey was
completed online or in-person, etc.).
37 We will consider that ‘completing’ the programme involves attending at least 75% of the programme sessions,
(including the last session).

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
37
Further adaptation
As noted above, while we will conduct initial adaptations prior to training and first delivery, the bulk of
this work will take place via a series of workshops during and after first delivery and the feasibility
study. The benefit of conducting additional adaptation work at this time is that it can incorporate
feedback from caregivers/families who have participated in GenPMTO, as well as practitioners who
have gained experience in delivering the programme.
These workshops would be designed to elicit the views of practitioners with experience of delivering
similar programmes, of practitioners in training for the delivery of GenPMTO, and of representative
caregivers. Based on the views expressed in these workshops, the Lab and Barnardo’s may agree to
make adjustments to the content of the training materials for practitioners and/or the
delivery/programme materials for caregivers. It is planned that as the implementation partner,
Barnardo’s would run these workshops, including overseeing the recruitment of workshop
participants.
A range of frameworks for conducting intervention adaptation exist, many of which broadly
recommend the same steps
(an example framework is detailed in Card et al., 2009 ). As part of
38
39
this phase we will consider which approach and combination of steps towards adaptation would be
most appropriate and proportionate for this project. A key step in many adaptation frameworks
involves identifying a programme’s core components and best-practice characteristics (in order to
decide which characteristics should not be modified or disrupted). To do this we will work with the
programme developer (ISII), consider existing research studies investigating this programme, and
draw on broader evidence on best practice in youth violence prevention.
39 Card, J. J., Solomon, J., & Cunningham, S. D. (2011). How to adapt effective programs for use in new contexts. Health
promotion practice, 12(1), 25-35.
38 Movsisyan, A., Arnold, L., Evans, R., Hallingberg, B., Moore, G., O’Cathain, A., ... & Rehfuess, E. (2019). Adapting
evidence-informed complex population health interventions for new contexts: a systematic review of guidance.
Implementation Science, 14(1), 1-20.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
38
Table 7: Stage 1 - Adaptation and training methods and data collection
Participant
group
Method
Data collected
Measure
Data analysis method
Acceptability of programme content and delivery
Barnardo’s
practitioners
Paired
interview
(60 minutes)
●
Practitioners' perceptions of the content (and any adaptations) of
GenPMTO in a UK context
Acceptability of
adaptation
Framework analysis
Barnardo’s
managers
Interview
(45 minutes)
●
Managers' perceptions of the content (and any adaptations) of
GenPMTO in a UK context
Acceptability of
adaptation
Framework analysis
Feasibility of programme delivery
Barnardo’s
practitioners
Analysis of
programme
administrative
data
●
Proportion of required practitioners recruited within [3-5 months] of
the adaptation phase beginning, relative to agreed targets
Recruitment
(practitioners)
Descriptive statistics
N/A
Analysis of
programme
administrative
data
●
Number of practitioners enrolled in training in GenPMTO
methodology within [6 months] of recruitment formally launching
Training
Descriptive statistics
Pink = qualitative data; Blue = quantitative data
Table 8: Stage 2 - Feasibility study methods and data collection
Participant
group
Method
Data collected
Measure
Data analysis method
Acceptability of programme content and delivery
Caregivers
Interview
(60 minutes)
●
Caregivers’ perception of the quality of the content and programme
delivery.
Acceptability of
programme
Framework analysis

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
39
Barnardo’s
practitioners
Paired
interview
(60 minutes)
●
Practitioners' perception of the content (including any
adaptations), delivery and factors that impacted on implementing,
GenPMTO
●
Practitioners' perceptions of acceptability, quality of content, and
quality of delivery for GenPMTO
Acceptability of
programme
Framework analysis
Barnardo’s
managers
Interview
(45 minutes)
●
Managers’ perception of the programme, impact on practitioners,
fit with other priorities and factors that impacted on implementation
Acceptability of
programme
Framework analysis
Referrers
from
statutory
and
non-statutor
y
organisation
s
Interview
(45 minutes)
●
Referrers' views about the programme and fit with their
organisation’s priorities / strategic aims
●
Feedback on the effectiveness of the referral process
Acceptability of
programme
Framework analysis
N/A
Analysis of
referral form
data
●
Number of referrals by LAs and other bodies
●
Eligibility of referred families for programme
Acceptability of
programme
Descriptive statistics
Feasibility of programme delivery
Caregivers
Outcome
survey
●
Understand how feasible the outcome survey is for caregivers to
complete (i.e. time taken to complete, difficulty of questions etc.)
Feasibility of
delivering outcome
survey
Descriptive statistics
Analysis of
programme
administrative
data
●
Proportion of caregivers agreeing to intervention and evaluation
●
Proportion of caregivers completing the programme
Recruitment and
retention
Descriptive statistics
Barnardo’s
practitioners
Paired
interview
(60 minutes)
●
Practitioners’ perception of the fidelity process / consultation with
model developers
●
Practitioners' perceptions of programme feasibility to be delivered
Feasibility of
programme delivery
Framework analysis

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
40
with fidelity at scale
N/A
ISII
assessment
●
The ISII programme experts assess practitioner sessions
according to the FIMPsystem developed by ISII.
Fidelity
Descriptive statistics
Evaluability of the programme
Caregivers
Analysis of
programme
administrative
data
●
Admin data on completion of outcome measures
Completeness of data
collection
Pink = qualitative data; Blue = quantitative data

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
41
7. Planned outputs
The outputs of this overall package of work and their timings are dependent on the outcomes of each
of the 4 stages.
Regardless of the outcome of the feasibility study, the Lab will provide a short report to the YEF
outlining the key findings and observations of the feasibility study. This will make a formal
conclusion as to whether GenPMTO can be feasibly delivered in the UK, and recommend whether the
evaluation should progress to Stage 3 (pilot stage).
If the feasibility study concludes that GenPMTO is sufficiently feasible in the UK and ready to
progress to a pilot trial, we will not publish these findings externally at the completion of the feasibility
study. We will instead report the findings of the feasibility study at whatever future point the project
terminates (e.g. after the pilot stage (if the conditions for progression to efficacy are not met), or at the
end of the efficacy stage). This report will contain findings and/or recommendations from the feasibility
study, pilot trial and/or full-scale efficacy trial of GenPMTO. The Lab will share the findings more
broadly where appropriate (and with the express permission from Barnardo’s and YEF), such as in
presentations, blogs and the Behavioural Insight Team’s (BIT) annual report. The primary audience of
YEF’s website is practitioners and researchers interested in reducing young people’s involvement in
violence.
If the feasibility study concludes that GenPMTO is not sufficiently feasible in the UK and not
ready to progress to a pilot trial, then these findings will be published externally at the completion of
the feasibility study in the form of a short report, which will include the key findings of the feasibility
study including any lessons learned during the trial.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
42
8. Ethics and data protection
Ethics
Overview
This trial was self-assessed as being high risk due to the inclusion of high-risk participants in the form
of vulnerable young people. As a result we sought ethical approval from an independent panel of
external
experts
with
experience
of
working
with
vulnerable
children
and
experience
with
safeguarding and child protection.
The independent ethics review committee (ERC) reviewed the following information:
●
Ethical review form
●
Consent forms and information sheets for young people and parents/caregivers of young
people
●
Topic guides
●
Safeguarding and distress protocol
The ERC discussed any issues raised by the research with The Lab with the aim of finding solutions
that meet ethical requirements. The reviewers and the project manager agreed solutions to any
outstanding issues, and the resulting changes to the way the project is being implemented have been
included on the ethics form. The ERC was happy to approve the project with the inclusion of these
amendments.
If there are substantial changes while the research or evaluation is being implemented, the ethics
form will be revised and the revisions agreed with the ERC.
Informed Consent
All participants will be asked to provide written consent to participate in the feasibility study for ethical
purposes, before data collection or interviews take place. Participants will be provided with an
information sheet to inform them of what to expect from their involvement in the feasibility study.
Caregivers taking part in the feasibility study will also be informed that their participation in GenPMTO,
is contingent on participation in the evaluation - hence, opting out of data collection prior to
intervention delivery would involve withdrawing from the programme.
We will invite all caregivers to complete outcome surveys, as well as asking for written parental
consent from all caregivers to invite their children to complete outcome surveys. We will provide a
verbal explanation of the purpose and process of the feasibility study, as well as a written information
sheet to CYPs and seek their verbal assent to complete outcome surveys, prior to collecting any such
data.
All participants will be informed of their right to withdraw their consent at any point during interviews
and/or data collection sessions. We will make it clear to participants that we will use their information
to inform the findings of our evaluation, which will be incorporated into a report, or other publicly
publishable materials. However, no identifying information will be disclosed in any such materials.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
43
We will also inform participants that they may be able to withdraw their data from the feasibility study,
up until approximately 6 months after the end of the study (anticipated to be October 2026). At this
point their data will be deleted from our systems, and anonymised information will have already been
incorporated into reporting, or other publicly publishable materials.
Safeguarding
Safeguarding means protecting the health, wellbeing and human rights of children and at-risk adults,
enabling them to live safely, free from abuse, violence and neglect. During the feasibility study, we
protect children and adults-at-risk by following a strict safeguarding and distress protocol. Before any
interviewing or surveying with vulnerable groups, any researcher will:
●
Undergo, and obtain, an enhanced DBS check.
●
Complete the NSPCC’s Introduction to safeguarding and child protection training.
●
Review the Nesta Group Safeguarding Policy and the GenPMTO Child safeguarding
issues and Risk Assessment.
●
Review the GenPMTO Safeguarding and distress protocol.
If, during any research activity, a participant discloses anything that leads a researcher to believe that
they themselves, or someone else, might be at risk of harm, they will follow these steps:
●
Step 1: Is there an immediate risk of harm to the interviewee or others?
○
If yes: they will call the police or other emergency services as soon as possible and
follow up with an emergency report to the Nesta Group Chief People Officer (The Lab’s
Designated Safeguarding Lead) and the project’s qualitative lead.
○
If no: proceed to step 2.
●
Step 2: Establish an understanding of what has happened
○
They will keep questions to the minimum necessary to ensure a clear and accurate
understanding of what has been disclosed. The researcher will only ask questions to
help establish whether the participant is at risk of harm. They will not make allegations
or lead them to make allegations.
○
The researcher will ask the young person or at-risk adult whether anyone is aware of
what they have disclosed e.g. are the parents/caregivers aware of it. If the concern is
about a pre-existing mental health condition that is known to the caregivers or medical
professionals (e.g. the adults GP), for example, this would not represent a
safeguarding concern that would need to be reported.
○
If you notice something concerning, which hasn’t been disclosed: they will ask open
questions to establish if there is an explanation e.g. “that looks like a big bruise. Can
you tell me what happened?”
●
Step 3: Make a written record
○
The researcher will note down what has been said, any physical evidence that is
available including injuries or the personal state of the participant.
●
Step 4: Inform the participant
○
If the researcher considers that there is a risk, they will inform the participant that they
need to tell the Lab’s designated safeguarding lead. They will explain that a
safeguarding lead is the person in an organisation that’s responsible for dealing with
concerns to people’s safety.
●
Step 5: Report the concerns

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
44
○
Nesta Group Chief People Officer (the Lab’s Designated Safeguarding Lead) and the
project’s qualitative lead.
○
The researcher will be available to the designated safeguarding leads to assist with
further assessments, including whether cases need to be escalated to other parties
such as the child protection services.
Data protection
We will follow appropriate data protection processes in accordance with BIT processes, including
completing a Data Protection and Security Checklist and Data Protection Impact Assessment, which
have both been reviewed and approved by BIT’s legal team.
The Lab will store and handle all data securely and confidentially in line with requirements of the UK
GDPR, and Data Protection Act (2018), including that Personal Data shall be processed lawfully, fairly
and in a transparent manner that ensures the security of the Personal Data. It is initially proposed that
only the Lab research team will have access to data collected as part of the evaluation. However, it is
expected that in order to review the fidelity of the implementation of GenPMTO, and to coach and
certify practitioners, ISII will require access to data from the sessions in which the practitioners deliver
the programme to caregivers. Given that most ISII training staff are based in the USA, Barnardo’s will
likely need to establish a Data Sharing Agreement with ISII, with the Lab overseeing this process.
For the duration of the evaluation, the Lab will be the data controller who also processes data. This
means that the Lab is responsible for deciding the purpose and legal basis for processing data. The
legal basis is “legitimate interest”. Article 6(1)(f) of UK GDPR states that “processing is necessary for
the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party except where
such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject
which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.”
The Lab has determined there is a genuine purpose to process this data. This data will inform the
necessary evidence around what works to improve caregivers' skills and strategies, which in turn,
improves positive behaviours, relationships and life outcomes of young people, particularly those at
risk of, or who have engaged in, violent behaviours. Data processing is necessary to complete a
robust evaluation. The Lab does not consider that collecting and gathering data for this trial will
interfere with individuals’ interests, rights or freedoms. The data subjects will include; at-risk youth,
caregivers of at-risk youth, the developer team at ISII and the delivery team at Barnardo’s.
During this trial, data will be stored on secure, password-protected and encrypted network drives
(hosted by BIT). Access to the data will be restricted to the relevant members of the project team
involved in this evaluation.
All data shared with BIT will be processed in line with its data protection policy. A summary of this
policy can be found in Annex C. In the analysis, BIT will promote data quality and security through the
following measures.
●
All variables will be clearly named, coded and labelled before analysis
●
Checks on the data received will be carried out for valid values, range, and consistency
against already held data
●
Any modifications to datasets will be recorded in the analysis code, which will be
well-annotated
●
Original raw datasets will never be amended

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
45
●
Access to the project data will be restricted to project personnel
●
All data stored by BIT will be backed up
In case a Personal Data Breach occurs despite the mitigations in place, project team staff will deal
with the security incident without undue delays. All Personal Data Breaches (or suspected Personal
Data Breaches) will be reported to BIT’s Data Protection Officer as soon as a project team member
becomes aware of one (including if this is outside of office hours) by contacting the Data Protection
Officer directly and by completing a Data Incident Notification Form. Staff will not attempt to
investigate a Personal Data Breach themselves but will take steps to contain the Personal Data
Breach as quickly as possible. Such steps might be taken prior to reporting the incident to the Data
Protection Officer where this is reasonable and necessary to protect Data Subjects and mitigate the
potential impact of the Personal Data Breach.
Data management
All quantitative and qualitative data will be stored in a secure Google Folder where access is
restricted to only researchers conducting the analysis. Data will be deleted upon completion of the
project in October 2026.
Quantitative data
Survey data
We will use SmartSurvey to collect the survey data. SmartSurvey produces a spreadsheet where one
row is a survey response. This will be used to code the survey outcomes using the methods outlined
in the outcome measures table.
Surveys will ask participants to record their name. This enables us to link survey responses with
demographic data and other outcome measures. Once survey responses have been linked,
participants’ names will be removed.
Programme administrative data
Barnardo's is responsible for providing us with the programme administrative data. All data shared
with the lab by Barnardo’s will be received via a secure transfer link (Virtru or Quatrix).
Programme administrative data includes the referral data and the programme delivery data (e.g.
attendance sheets, fidelity checklists). Referral data will be collected via an online form (located on
FormAssembly) completed by borough staff. Barnardo’s will download the data in a spreadsheet and
share the relevant data with the lab. Programme delivery data will be collected via Barnardo’s , and
shared with the lab.
Qualitative data
Interview transcripts
Interview recordings will be uploaded to McGowan for transcription. All interview recordings will be
transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and facilitate subsequent analysis. Transcripts will be

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
46
anonymised by assigning unique identifiers to each participant, replacing their names or any
identifying information. Transcripts, observation notes, and any additional relevant documents will be
securely stored in a password-protected file area. Access to the data will be restricted to only project
team members involved in the analysis. Recordings will be deleted upon completion of the project in
October 2026.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
47
9. Racial diversity and inclusion
The Lab is committed to conducting research in which equality, diversity and inclusion principles are
firmly embedded across all stages of evaluation, from the design, recruitment, data collection, and
analysis. Within the Adaptation and Training phase of the project in particular, we will strive to ensure
that both the content and the delivery of the GenPMTO programme is suitably adapted to a UK
context, and is informed by cultural, racial, and other relevant demographic sensitivities.
Groups included in the programme and evaluation
The Lab will work with Barnardo’s to monitor for inequalities within the referral and recruitment
processes to ensure that no demographic group is unduly excluded from access to the GenPMTO
programme. At all stages, but during the Feasibility study stage in particular, we will monitor whether
certain demographic groups are under- or over-represented in referrals to the programme by referral
agencies. This may occur due to unconscious bias within referral agencies, and/or because the
GenPMTO programme is viewed by referral agencies as unsuitable for families with certain
demographic characteristics. In either case, the Lab and Barnardo’s would seek to investigate this
further in consultation with referral agencies.
Similarly, at all stages but during the Feasibility Study in particular, the Lab will work with Barnardo’s
to monitor whether the rate of acceptance to the trial (i.e. families accepting the offer to partake in
either the non-randomised Feasibility Study or the randomised Pilot or Efficacy trials) varies across
certain demographic groups. If this is the case, the Lab and Barnardo’s will seek to investigate why
this is the case, and whether the programme content and/or delivery needs to be adapted to ensure
equality of acceptability and access.
Inclusivity during recruitment and programme delivery
The Lab will work with Barnardo’s as programme delivery partner to ensure that inclusive practices
are central to the recruitment process and that participant wellbeing is promoted by:
1.
Being considerate of the sensitivity of the topic area during recruitment
2.
Providing caregivers with welcoming information documentation (during either the feasibility
study, pilot trial, or efficacy trial stages), which provides all necessary information about data
security, anonymity and the reasons for undertaking research, in plain English
3.
Offering a flexible and varied range of times for introductory (and other) sessions, and the
option of attending sessions remotely via video-link, allowing different groups and individuals
the opportunity to participate.
Inclusivity during data collection
As outlined in Table 8, the collection of data directly from caregivers will occur via caregiver surveys
and caregiver interviews. To ensure that the principle of inclusivity is adhered to during this process,
the Lab will work with Barnardo’s to:
1.
Use inclusive and accessible language in all survey and interview questions and guidance;

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
48
2.
Ensure that sufficient numbers of either Lab and/or Barnardo’s staff will be present at
in-person sessions where caregiver surveys are being administered, to provide assistance or
instruction as required;
3.
Strive for equality of access by enabling online (remote) participation in caregiver surveys and
interviews. Access issues could include a lack of time during the day to attend sessions, or
distance from an in-person session.
4.
Training for researchers: Prior to conducting interviews, researchers will complete the
NSPCC’s Introduction to safeguarding and child protection training and complete a
pre-interview workshop on interviewing best-practice with NJ Research Ltd.
Wellbeing and safety during surveys and interviews
The Lab is conscious that families who engage in the evaluation could be vulnerable to negative and
stressful impacts of the research process. The Lab will work to ensure the wellbeing and
psychological safety of individuals during data collection by:
1.
Designing interview questions to minimise harm and maximise comfort: The Lab will
maximise wellbeing and minimise harm during surveys and interviews by (i) structuring
questions to build in complexity and difficulty to increase comfort as rapport to develop, (ii)
depersonalising questions to elicit comfort and stronger answers (e.g. instead of ‘what do you
hate about X’, ask ‘If you had a magic wand, what 3 things would you change about X?’’), (iii)
being aware of tension discomfort or distress during the interview, repeating that the interview
can be stopped may help participants and repeatedly ask if they want to continue, (iv)
ensuring that researchers are aware of places to signpost participants and offer this
information, and (v) auditing the questions for their sensitivity within the context before the
interview.
2.
Allowing the participants to choose their environment for participating: Where possible
the Lab will allow the interviewees to make decisions about the survey and interview setting(s)
- at their home, a public place or over the phone, enabled by the online conference format.
3.
Reminding participants of anonymity and data security: The Lab will seek to minimise
anxiety for caregivers by reminding them that the process is fully anonymous and that all
identifiable information will be removed from the transcripts and report.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
49
10. Risks
We have identified the following risks and mitigations in Stages 1 & 2 of the project:
Table 9: Risks and mitigations for feasibility study
Risk
Impact
Likelihood
Mitigation
Number of trained
practitioners is not
sufficient to deliver
GenPMTO to the
number of caregivers
recruited.
High
Medium
Barnado’s and ISII will coordinate to establish a feasible timeline to
recruit and train practitioners to be able to deliver GenPMTO
throughout the feasibility study period.
Referral partners such
as Local Authorities
are not supportive of
the GenPMTO
programme.
High
Medium
Barnardo’s continues to develop strong relationships with a range
of boroughs across the feasibility study region. If there are
challenges with certain boroughs getting on board, alternative
boroughs could be contacted.
Additionally, Barnardo’s can reach out to Youth Offending Teams
and Directors of Children’s Services within boroughs directly to
increase local authorities’ engagement with the programme.
Recruitment of
participants is below
target
High
Medium
Barnardo’s will provide additional marketing resources and support
to local boroughs to socialise the programme. Barnardo’s will
deliver a launch event with boroughs and referring practitioners.
Monitor engagement within boroughs to identify successful
strategies used to receive referrals.
Low participation in
research activities by
caregivers (e.g.
interviews)
Medium
Medium
Provision of incentives for participants. providing caregivers with
shopping vouchers for each of the following research activities:
£10 voucher for time taken to complete the outcome survey
(estimated to take 25-30 minutes);
£20 voucher to participate in a 60-minute interview.
We will not be providing incentives to other participant groups (i.e.
Barnardo’s staff and referrers)as we do not expect their
participation in the evaluation to add significant burden beyond
what is already required in their role that supports the delivery of
GenPMTO.
Content not suitable for
UK context
Medium
Medium
Barnado’s and ISII will work to adapt the design of the intervention
to meet the needs of a UK population, including revising delivery
content to better reflect delivering within the UK cultural context
(where appropriate).
Disruptions to delivery
of GenPMTO due to
force majeure (e.g.
Covid-19 pandemic)
Medium
Low
GenPMTO has the capability to be delivered online, which means
delivery should be feasible if there were restrictions on in-person
attendance at intervention sessions. Outcome measures may also
be obtained from participants online, or through other digital
methods of communication

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
50
11. Timeline
The study as a whole (feasibility and adaptation through to efficacy) is expected to last three years
from April 2023 to May 2026. However, the overall timeline is dependent on the number of referrals
received and any necessary pausing periods between stages. Below is a timeline of Stages 1 & 2 of
the study, as described in this protocol:
Table 10: Timeline of key activities for Stages 1 and 2 of the GenPMTO evaluation project
Phase
Activity
Description of activity
Led by
Target dates
Project
set-up
Evaluation
design
Protocol published and detailed
internal plans and project
management tools development
the Lab
June 2023
Development of surveys, interview
guides and other data collection tools
the Lab
June 2023
Adaptation
and training
Adaptation
Adaptation
Initial adaptation activities
Barnardo’s /
ISII / the Lab
July 2023
Adaptation workshops delivered
the Lab
November 2-23
- January 2024
Necessary adaptations recorded and
made
Barnardo’s /
ISII / the Lab
July 2023 -
February 2024
Training
Practitioner training workshop 1
Barnardo’s /
ISII
September 2023
Practitioner training workshop 2
Barnardo’s /
ISII
October 2023
Feasibility
study
Borough
recruitment
Recruitment of suitable boroughs
Barnardo’s
July 2023 -
September 2023
Caregiver
recruitment
1-2 cohorts of eligible caregivers
referred to GenPMTO
Barnardo’s
September 2023
Initial delivery
Deliver programme to 1-2 cohorts of
parents/guardians of medium-risk
children
Barnardo’s
September 2023
Data collection
Qualitative and quantitative data
collection
Barnardo’s /
ISII
October 2023 -
February 2024

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
51
Annexes
Annex A: Summary of GenPMTO programme using the TIDieR framework
Name: Provide a name or
phrase that describes the
intervention.
GenPMTO
Why: Describe any
rationale, theory, or goal of
the elements essential to the
intervention.
●
Positive parenting practices promote positive
child/youth outcomes, and coercive parenting
practices disrupt them. As children become
adolescents, peers also become mediators of youth
outcomes.
●
The core positive parenting practices are: skill
encouragement, limit setting, monitoring/supervision,
family problem solving, and positive involvement.
●
The programme aims to teach parents effective
parenting strategies, increase effective parenting, and
reduce deviant peer association, which then mediate
programme effects on positive child/youth outcomes.
●
In the short term, the programme aims to reduce
children and young people's internalising and
externalising behaviour problems.
●
In the longer term, the programme aims to reduce
police arrests, increase school functioning, improve
social relationships, and reduce substance use.
●
Parents show improved marital relationships, a rise out
of poverty, and increased socio-economic status.
What - Materials: Describe
any physical or informational
materials used in the
intervention, including those
provided to participants or
used in intervention delivery
or in training of intervention
providers. Provide
information on where the
materials can be accessed.
●
Training materials and implementation guides for
practitioners.
●
Materials for parents/caregivers.
●
Materials are purchasable from ISII.
What - Procedures:
Describe each of the
procedures, activities, and/or
processes used in the
intervention, including any
enabling or support
activities.
●
Initial training and technical assistance - (ISII)
provides extensive training and coaching to local
practitioners, some of whom are eventually certified as
leaders, mentors, trainers, coaches, or fidelity raters
for the following generations of PMTO clinicians.
●
Ongoing fidelity monitoring - Practitioners videotape
programme sessions for review and coaching by ISII.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
52
Practitioners upload written materials and video
recordings to ISII’s online platform, and receive
feedback.
●
10- to 14-session parenting programme -
Practitioners use active teaching approaches (such as
group problem-solving, role-play, and video modelling)
to support caregivers in using positive parenting
strategies at home.
Who: For each category of
intervention provider (such
as psychologist, nursing
assistant), describe their
expertise, background, and
any specific training given.
Qualifications required for practitioners depend on the
agencies that employ them. Practitioners may have
Bachelor's, Master's, or Doctorate level degrees.
Practitioners serve in a wide variety of delivery systems
including child welfare, youth justice, and child mental health.
How: Describe the modes of
delivery (such as face to
face or by some other
mechanism such as internet
or telephone) of the
intervention and whether it
was provided individually or
in a group.
The intervention will be provided in group-format, either
face-to-face or online.
More broadly, the intervention can be delivered on an
individual basis, but this mode of delivery will not be used as
part of this project.
Where: Describe the type(s)
of location(s) where the
intervention occurred,
including any necessary
infrastructure or relevant
features.
The programme can be delivered in out-patient health
settings, the home, and community centres/settings. In this
project, the programme will be delivered in community centres
and settings.
When and how much:
Describe the number of
times the intervention was
delivered and over what
period of time including the
number of sessions, their
schedule, and their duration,
intensity, or dose.
The programme can be delivered over different modes (i.e.
in-person or online). Sessions are between 90 and 120
minutes each.
Tailoring: If the intervention
was planned to be
personalised, titrated or
adapted, then describe
what, why, when and how.
Programme to be adapted using procedures articulated in this
protocol.
Modification: If the
intervention was modified
during the course of the
study, describe the changes
(what, why, when, and how).
To be assessed as part of the feasibility study and future
stages.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
53
How well (planned): If
adherence or fidelity was
assessed, describe how and
by whom, and if any
strategies were used to
maintain or improve fidelity,
describe them.
Programme developer experts assess practitioner sessions
using the FIMP (Fidelity of Implementation Rating System)
measure, developed by ISII.
How well (actual): If actual
adherence or fidelity was
assessed, describe the
extent to which the
intervention was delivered
as planned.
To be assessed as part of the feasibility study and future
stages.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
54
Annex B: Evaluation team experience
●
Tom McBride is the Director of the Ending Youth Violence Lab and has over 15 years of
experience in research and evaluation roles. He is the former Director of Evidence at the Early
Intervention Foundation and Head of Strategic Analysis at the Department for Education. Tom
will have overall responsibility for the delivery and quality of this work
●
Jack Martin is an Assistant Director within the Ending Youth Violence Lab and has over 8
years of experience working at the Early Intervention Foundation and sits on the Government’s
Trials Advice Panel. Jack will oversee the delivery of the work and support, supervise and
quality assure the work of the project team.
●
Patrick Taylor is a Principal Research Advisor and leads BIT's education and youth
evaluation work, supporting the design, improvement and evaluation of complex interventions
in these fields. Patrick will provide support and quality assurance for the pilot evaluation.
●
Naomi Jones is a highly experienced social research consultant who specialises in helping
organisations to design, commission, deliver and use research better, with over 18 years
applied research experience. Naomi was formerly head of social attitudes at NatCen, where
she led a mixed-method research team and oversaw the British Social Attitudes Survey.
Naomi will lead the qualitative evaluation.
●
Neeraj Rahal is a Policy Advisor in the Home Affairs and Security team at BIT, focusing on
projects involving crime and criminal justice. Neeraj will project manage and coordinate the
project.
●
Lilli Wagstaff is a quantitative research advisor in the Home Affairs and Security team at BIT
and leads the evaluation and day-to-day delivery of a number of projects focusing on policy
areas including reducing violence and recidivism. Lilli will lead the quantitative evaluation.
●
Niall Daly is a Research Advisor in the Health and Wellbeing team at BIT, specialising in trial
design, implementation, and quantitative data analysis across a range of projects within the
health space. He will support the quantitative evaluation.
●
Emma Leith is a Policy Advisor at BIT. Prior to joining BIT, Emma worked in social and market
research with a particular focus on qualitative interviewing and questionnaire design. Her work
to date with BIT has been primarily focused on mental health and work health and safety.
Emma will support the qualitative evaluation.
●
Martin Wessel Martin is an Associate Advisor in BIT’s Home Affairs and Security team. He
works on policy areas spanning crime, justice and social capital and mobility. Martin will
support the qualitative evaluation
●
Dr Sajid Humayun is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Greenwich.
Sajid is
an expert in youth justice and in evaluating interventions for youth crime. Sajid worked on the
first RCT for a County Lines intervention and ran the first British evaluation of Functional
Family Therapy. Sajid will be providing expert advice and challenge on the design and delivery
of the evaluation on a consultancy basis.

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
55
Annex C: BIT data protection policy summary
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes certain obligations upon Behavioural
Insights Limited (BIT), and other companies within the group, as Controllers and / or Processors in
relation to processing Personal Data.
BIT takes these obligations seriously. BIT is committed to respecting the rights of all individuals whose
personal data it processes:
1.
In relation to data security, BIT has implemented appropriate measures to ensure the secure
storage and handling of Personal Data, including obtaining a Cyber Essentials Plus
certification and developing a comprehensive Data Handling Protocol.
2.
In relation to data protection and privacy rights, our data processing activities are
conducted according to the principles relating to the processing of Personal Data set out in the
GDPR, including that Personal Data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent
manner, and in a manner that ensures the security of the Personal Data. BIT has policies and
procedures in place to ensure compliance with these principles.
More information on how we handle Personal Data in relation to projects we are working on is
detailed below.
BIT is registered with the UK ICO under the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018. BIT’s registration
number is ZA038649.
Privacy by design
BIT conducts all trials and research projects with a privacy by design approach to protect and
maintain the privacy and security of research participants’ and research subjects’ data. We work
closely with clients, government departments and research partners when designing interventions to
ensure that a privacy by design approach is implemented and respected.
Our data protection and data security policies and procedures reflect necessary legislative
requirements and set out the standard to which BIT staff should work when dealing with Personal
Data, including:
●
Attendance at mandatory data protection training for all employees;
●
Identifying data requirements from the outset of each project;
●
Minimising use of Personal Data where possible and ensuring we have the right to handle any
Personal Data where successful project delivery is reliant on using it;
●
Putting in place data processing agreements with all clients and suppliers to clarify data
handling arrangements ahead of any data being transferred;
●
Complying with all relevant data residency requirements and implementing appropriate
technical and organisational measures, to protect data and avoid unauthorised access,
internally and externally;
●
A clear internal reporting process in the event of a data breach, to consider the nature of the
breach and identify any necessary action, including whether the breach should be reported to

The Ending Youth Violence Lab / GenPMTO Evaluation - Feasibility and adaptation study protocol
56
the relevant authorities, i.e. the Information Commissioner’s Office in the UK or the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner;
●
Clear procedures on retention and destruction of Personal Data to avoid keeping hold of
Personal Data longer than necessary for the purposes of each project; and
●
Implementing robust investigation and reporting procedures in relation to any data breach or
security issues that arise both within our own systems and those of our clients, partners and
suppliers.
Data Protection Officer
The BIT group of companies has appointed a Data Protection Officer (DPO) who is the first point of
contact for any issue regarding data protection and data security. The DPO can be contacted via
email at dpo@bi.team or by writing to us at:
Data Protection Officer, Behavioural Insights Limited, 58 Victoria Embankment, London, EC4Y 0DS,
United Kingdom.