Program Profile: Green Dot Intervention Program

This program is designed to increase active-bystander behaviors and reduce dating and sexual violence in college and high school students. The program is rated Promising. Students who participated in the program had a statistically significantly greater number of observed and self-reported active-bystander behaviors than students who did not participate. However, there was no statistically significant impact on sexual violence victimization or sexual harassment.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

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

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

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

Program Goals

The goals of the Green Dot program are to increase active-bystander behaviors of high school and college students and to reduce dating and sexual violence. Green Dot helps students understand how individuals target victims; how to assess a high-risk situation; how to consider appropriate options; and how to select safe active-bystander behaviors, which they would be willing to carry out, to prevent sexual violence on campus. Examples include 1) asking someone who looks very upset if they’re okay and need help; 2) making sure someone who had too much to drink gets home safely; and 3) getting help for a friend who was forced to have sex or was hurt by a partner. The program also encourages students to support and motivate their peers to become active bystanders with them, thus improving the chances that new social norms will spread across campus.

Program Components

The Green Dot program is implemented in two phases. Phase 1 consists of a 50-minute motivational speech to college students, school leaders, faculty, and administrators to introduce the concept of active-bystander behaviors and build a schoolwide commitment to sexual-violence prevention. The speech fosters awareness of dating and sexual violence; presents the bystander intervention model; and motivates students to get involved in prevention behaviors. Phase 2 of the Green Dot program includes bystander intervention training. The intervention program, Students Educating and Empowering to Develop Safety (SEEDS), focuses on preventing assaultive behavior by providing students with skills to be proactive bystanders. Students attend small-group sessions where they are taught to recognize and implement active-bystander behaviors. Trainings focus on sexual violence victimization and perpetration, and on how to recognize situations that may lead to violence. Students are taught how to act directly to reduce the likelihood of violence. Trainings may also cover sexual harassment, stalking, and other forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) such as physical or psychological abuse.

Program Theory

Bystander theory suggests several factors that inhibit bystanders from intervening in high-risk, crisis situations. The first is diffusion of responsibility, the notion that people are less likely to react in a crisis situation when more individuals are present because each assumes that someone else will intervene. The second is evaluation apprehension, in which people are reluctant to respond because they are afraid they will look irrational. The third is pluralistic ignorance, the likelihood that when faced with a crisis situation, people will defer to the cues given by those around them when deciding whether to intervene. The fourth is confidence in skills, in which people are more likely to get involved when they feel confident in their ability to do so successfully. The final factor is modeling; people are more likely to intervene in a high-risk situation when they have seen someone else model active-bystander behaviors first (Latane and Darley, 1970; Rushton and Campbell 1977; Goldman and Harlow 1993; Chekroun and Brauer 2002).

Study

Coker and colleagues (2011) used a randomized experimental research design to evaluate the impact of the Green Dot program. The implementation of Green Dot was assessed to determine whether students who participated in the program had increased observed and/or active-bystander behaviors, compared with those who did not participate in the program. The program was implemented by the Violence Intervention and Prevention (VIP) Center at the University of Kentucky (UK).

A random sample of 2,000 UK undergraduate students from each class (freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors) was selected from the university’s registrar list for spring 2010. Half of this sample was male and all students were between the ages of 18 to 26. The random sample was stratified using student classification (freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors) and gender (male and female). A total of 7,945 UK undergraduate students with UK email addresses were selected to complete an online survey.

Of the 7,945 invited to participate, 3,417 students completed the survey; however, only 2,504 students were included in the analysis because those with missing data were excluded. There were no differences between the demographic profile of UK students included in the random sample and the whole UK undergraduate population, except that 100 percent of students in the sample were permanent Kentucky residents and 80 percent of UK’s student body were permanent residents. When comparing those included in the invited sample with those who completed the online survey, those completing the survey were significantly more likely to be female, freshmen, in a fraternity or sorority, and in a dating relationship. However, there were no statistically significant differences between those who completed the online survey and those included in the analysis. The final analytic sample was 60.5 percent female and 85.7 percent white, and 29.0 percent were freshmen.

The impact of the Green Dot program was evaluated using three treatment groups: 1) the Students Educating and Empowering to Develop Safety (SEEDS) group, who listened to the Green Dot motivational speech and participated in the bystander training (n = 351); 2) the VIP engaged group, who were VIP Center clients/volunteers without bystander training, (n = 159); and 3) the Green Dot speech alone group, who did not receive training but only participated in the first component (n = 693). There were no significant differences among the three treatment groups. The control group (no intervention) consisted of 1,301 students who had not received bystander training, were not clients/volunteers of the VIP Center, and had not heard a Green Dot speech. The CrimeSolutions review looked at the difference between the SEEDS treatment group and the no-intervention control group.

Actual active-bystander behaviors, such as “talked to a friend who was raped or hit by a partner” or “made sure someone who had too much to drink got home safely,” were measured using the modified Bystander Behaviors Scale (Banyard, Plante, and Moynihan 2005). Observed bystander behaviors were measured using the same list of behaviors, with instructions to respond on the frequency with which the student had seen or heard someone else do the active bystander behavior. The same timeframe was used to ask about actual and observed active-bystander behaviors (Fall 2009 to Spring 2010). The data were analyzed using a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA). The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Study

Coker and colleagues (2017) conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to determine the impact of the Green Dot program on sexual violence and related forms of interpersonal violence. In 2010, 26 high schools were randomized to either the treatment condition, which implemented Green Dot programming (n = 13), or to the control condition, which received no intervention (n = 13). At the end of the study, schools in both conditions had the option to continue or adopt the program at no cost.

At baseline, 54.6 percent of the students in intervention schools were female, and 44.3 percent were currently receiving free or reduced meals. A majority (82.5 percent) were white, and approximately one quarter (24.7 percent) reported witnessing parental intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime. Of the students in the control schools, 54.1 percent were female, and 45.5 percent were currently receiving free or reduced meals. Most students (87.2 percent) were white, and 25.7 percent reported witnessing parental IPV in their lifetime. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between treatment and control schools.

Outcomes of interest included sexual violence perpetration and victimization, sexual harassment perpetration and victimization, psychological dating violence perpetration and victimization, and physical dating violence perpetration and victimization. All outcomes were measured using a 99-item, self-reported questionnaire on violence perpetration and victimization in the past 12 months. This survey was distributed at baseline (Spring 2010) and once each year during the implementation of the program, from 2011 to 2014. The CrimeSolutions review looked at the differences between the treatment and control groups from the year 4 survey.

From baseline to year 4, a total of 106,867 students were present on days when surveys were taken, and 83.9 percent completed the surveys. Students who did not provide demographic or violence information were excluded (n = 9,427), as were students determined to be potential “mischievous responders” such as those who self-reported that they had not been sexually active but were pregnant or had children, or that they had been in multiple relationships in the past 12 months but had no relationship within the same time frame for different measures (n = 6,485). The final analytic sample included 73,795 survey responses across 5 years from 8,099 students in the treatment group and 8,143 students in the control group. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate condition-time interaction and provide mean estimates by each year. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine the potential effect of gender on program outcomes.

Study

Bush and colleagues (2019) followed up on the prior analyses from Study 2 (Coker et al. 2017) to examine how the Green Dot program worked to reduce violence perpetration. The study sample and baseline characteristics were the same as those described in Study 2.

Using primary data collected in Study 2, the study authors conducted a primary linear mixed model to determine the difference between treatment and control groups in acceptance of violence, in bystander actions through engaging peers, and in overall bystander actions. Outcomes were measured through a self-report survey. Acceptance of violence was measured through 7 items on the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale and 5 items on the Acceptance of Couple Violence Scale. Bystander actions through engaging peers was measured through 5 items on the survey, asking the students how often they communicated with their friends in certain situations. Overall bystander actions was measured through 7 items on the survey, asking the students how often they observed and engaged in positive bystander behaviors. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Subgroup Analysis

With regard to subgroup analyses, Coker and colleagues (2011) also analyzed the data using a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine the effectiveness of the “VIP engaged” and “Green Dot speech only” treatment groups, compared with the no-intervention control group. They found that students in both treatment groups self-reported a greater number of observed and actual bystander behaviors, compared with students in the control group. These differences were statistically significant.

Coker and colleagues (2017) conducted subgroup analyses to determine the potential effect of gender on program outcomes. They found that girls in the treatment group self-reported perpetrating fewer overall sexual violence incidents, sexual harassment incidents, and psychological dating violence incidents, compared with girls in the control group, at the year 4 follow up. This difference was statistically significant. However, there was no statistically significant difference between girls in the treatment and control groups in the perpetration of physical dating violence incidents, or between boys in the treatment and control groups in any form of perpetration. They found that there was a statistically significant lower likelihood of sexual violence for girls in the treatment group, compared with girls in the control group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between boys in the treatment and control groups in sexual violence victimization.

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

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

Banyard, Victoria L., Elizabeth G. Plante, and Mary M. Moynihan. 2005. Rape Prevention Through Bystander Education (Final report to NIJ for grant 2002-WG-BX-0009). Durham: University of New Hampshire.

Coker, Ann L., Bonnie S. Fisher, Heather M. Bush, Suzanne C. Swan, Corrine M. Williams, Emily R. Clear, and Sarah DeGue. 2015. “Evaluation of the Green Dot Bystander Intervention to Reduce Interpersonal Violence Among College Students Across Three Campuses.” Violence Against Women 21(12):1507–27.

Coker, Ann L., Heather M. Bush, Bonnie S. Fisher, Suzanne C. Swan, Corrine M. Williams, Emily R. Clear, and Sarah DeGue. 2016. “Multi-College Bystander Intervention Evaluation for Violence Prevention.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 50(3):295–302.

Cook-Craig, Patricia G., Ann L. Coker, Emily R. Clear, Lisandra S. Garcia, Heather M. Bush, Candace J. Brancato, Corrine M. Williams, and Bonnie S. Fisher. 2014. “Challenge and Opportunity in Evaluating a Diffusion-Based Active Bystanding Prevention Program: Green Dot in High Schools.” Violence Against Women 20(1):1179–1202.

Cook-Craig, Patricia G., Phyllis H. Millspaugh, Eileen A. Recktenwald, Natalie C. Kelly, Lea M. Hegge, Ann L. Coker, and Tisha S. Pletcher. 2014. “From Empower to Green Dot: Successful Strategies and Lessons Learned in Developing Comprehensive Sexual Violence Primary Prevention Programming.” Violence Against Women 20(1):1162–78.

Davidov, Danielle M., Kaitlyn Hill, Heather M. Bush, and Ann L. Coker. 2020. “The Green Light for Green Dot: A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing Adoption of an Efficacious Violence Prevention Program in High School Settings.” Violence Against Women 26(12–13):1701–26.

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

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

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

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

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

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