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

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

Detailed Description
-----------------
The ASEP is grounded in the theory of Third Party Policing (TPP). TPP interventions focus on controlling negative behavioral outcomes through partnerships that use a third party's legal powers. In ASEP, the police partner with the schools to work together to engage with young people, reduce their anti-social behavior and increase their school attendance. At the core of the partnership is communication of the legal lever: in ASEP, it is the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Act (2006) - requiring young people attend school up to age 16 and holding parents legally responsible. The laws are communicated to parents and young people who are not regularly attending school in a procedurally fair way within the context of an ASEP conference. The ASEP conference is especially designed to incorporate fair communication of the laws and consequences and involves a purpose-built script that seeks to increase willingness of both parents and young people to comply with the law. The ASEP conference participants include a trained facilitator (from Restorative Outcomes Australia; ROA), the young person missing a lot of school, their parent or guardian, a uniformed school-based police officer, and a school representative (e.g., teacher). An individually tailored Action Plan is developed during the conference which stipulate the actions that all conference participants are to take over the subsequent two months in order to ensure that the young person increases their school attendance and re-engages with school and/or transitions into paid work.

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

Conditions
-----------------
School Attendance, Welfare Dependence, Antisocial Behavior

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Behavioral: Ability School Engagement Program Conference


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: High school aged young people only, aged 12 to 16; Have 15% or more unexplained absences over each other previous two school terms; Have no known legitimate explanation for absences (e.g., ongoing medical issue); and Have at least one responsibly adult in their lives (e.g., parent, guardian, or carer) who provides social and/or financial support. Exclusion Criteria: None

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 12 Years
Maximum Age: 16 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Prevention
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Interventional Model Description: The current project utilizes a randomized controlled cluster trial to assess the efficacy of the ASEP intervention and thereby theoretically test the efficacy of third-party-policing. Data will be collected from high schools that are in either socially disadvantaged areas or have students who reside in socially disadvantaged areas. A total of 69 high schools were identified as eligible for the Trial based upon measures of social disadvantage. The 69 eligible high schools were randomly assigned to participate in the ASEP (experiment) or business-as-usual (control) conditions. Young people from schools who take part in the ASEP (experiment) will be recruited from the experimental schools. Official data will be obtained about the young people (identified for those in the experimental condition who consent; de-identified for the young people in the control schools).
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Experiment<br>For young people from schools randomly assigned to the experimental ASEP condition will participate in the ASEP intervention. The ASEP intervention is a Third-Party Policing partnership that involves a partnership between police and school, an ASEP conference and follow up which is organized and led by a conference facilitator with the young person, their parent (or guardian), a school representative (e.g., teacher), and a uniformed school-based police officer. The police and school representatives will be trained by the facilitator to utilize procedurally just dialogue during the entirety of the conference. The ASEP conference script will utilize a procedurally just dialogue to increase both the young person and their parents' perceptions and knowledge of the legitimacy of the truancy laws, police, and schools in order to gain willing compliance to follow the rules. | Behavioral: Ability School Engagement Program Conference<br>* The ASEP conference focuses on understanding the reasons behind why the young person is not attending school regularly, understand how the young person's non-attendance affects other conference participants, highlight the legal consequences of parents and/or guardians to ensure that their child attends school, and the development of a young person-centered Action Plan, which will specifically detail the actions that all parties are to take over the next three months to ensure that the young person re-engages with school and/or transitions into paid work.<br>|
| No Intervention: Control<br>Participants allocated to the control condition will be given the business-as-usual' approach to handling school non-attendance. The control participants will be sanctioned in the usual manner for engaging in truancy through the requirements denoted in the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Act (2006). | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Official School Absences | A count of the number of school absences of young people. | Six-Months Post-Intervention | 
| Official Arrest Records | A count of official arrest records of young people. | Six-Months Post Intervention | 
| Perceptions of School Legitimacy | These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of legitimacy of school staff with higher values equating to better perceptions of school staff legitimacy. | Two-months post intervention | 
| Perceptions of School Procedural Justice | These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of procedural justice of school staff with higher values equating to better perceptions of school staff procedural justice. | Two-months post intervention | 
| Perceptions of Police Legitimacy | These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of legitimacy of police in general with higher values equating to better perceptions of police legitimacy. | Two-months post intervention | 
| Perceptions of Police Procedural Justice | These measures are adapted from the original ASEP Project Trial (Mazerolle, 2014). The original ASEP researchers adapted these scales from Murphy and Mearns (2008), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), and Tankebe (2009). These indices include five items that address respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of procedural justice of police in general. | Two-months post intervention | 
| Perceptions of Family Legitimacy | Adapted from the work of Trinkner, 2012; Trinkner et al., 2012; Trinker & Cohn, 2014. Measures respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of family legitimacy with higher values equating to better perceptions of family legitimacy. | Two-months post intervention | 
| Perceptions of Family Procedural Justice | Adapted from the work of Trinkner, 2012; Trinkner et al., 2012; Trinker & Cohn, 2014. Measures respondents' (young people and parents/guardians in the experimental group only) perceptions of family procedural justice with higher values equating to better perceptions of family legitimacy. | Two-months post intervention | 
| General Well-being | The Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS; Haver et al., 2015; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009; Taggart et al., 2015; Tennant et al., 2007) to be administered to young people and parents in the experimental condition only. It includes 7 items, scores range from 7 to 35, and higher scores coincide with better well-being. | Two-months post intervention | 
| Self-efficacy | Includes 12 items from the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory (Carver et al., 1989; Carver, 1997) to be administered to young people and parents in the experimental condition only. Scores will range from 12 to 48 and coded so that higher values equate to better coping skills. | Two-months post intervention | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
School Attendance, Welfare Dependence, Antisocial Behavior, Third-Party Policing Partnerships