Forging Hopeful Futures to Reduce Youth Violence

Not Applicable

Recruiting

• Conditions: Coping Skills; Communication, Social; Violence, Sexual; Racism; Communication, Personal; Violence, Gender-Based; Violence in Adolescence; Violence, Physical; Adolescent Behavior; Violence, Non-accidental
• Interventions: Behavioral: Wellness Check-ins; Behavioral: Forging Hopeful Futures

• Registration Number: NCT05743478
• Lead Sponsor: University of Pittsburgh

Brief Summary

This cluster-randomized community-partnered study will examine the effectiveness of a racial-, gender-, and economic-justice focused youth violence prevention program called Forging Hopeful Futures with youth ages 13-19.

Detailed Description

This community-partnered cluster randomized trial in 16 neighborhoods impacted by structural inequities and high levels of community violence in Pittsburgh, PA and urban Washington D.C. and Maryland metro areas will evaluate effectiveness of Forging Hopeful Futures with youth ages 13-19. Forging Hopeful Futures combines economic justice content from job readiness training, racial and gender justice content from gender-transformative programming, and leadership building as a novel multi-level violence prevention intervention.

Study Timeline

• Study First Submitted: 2023-02-13
• Study First Submitted QC: 2023-02-14
• Study First Posted: 2023-02-24
• Study Start: 2023-07-10
• Status Verified: 2024-08
• Last Update Submitted: 2024-08-04
• Last Update Posted: 2024-08-06
• Primary Completion: 2025-09-30
• Study Completion: 2025-09-30

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: RECRUITING
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 720

Inclusion Criteria

1. Participants must be ages 13-19 (inclusive)
2. Participants must speak English
3. Participants must live in the participating neighborhoods, attend schools in the participating neighborhoods, or use participating facilities
4. Participants must be able to provide follow up contact information

Exclusion Criteria

1. Not ages 13 -19 (inclusive)
2. Do not speak English
3. Do not live in the participating neighborhoods, attend schools in the participating neighborhoods, or use participating facilities
4. Unable to provide follow up contact information

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Wellness Check-ins	Wellness Check-ins	Youth in neighborhoods randomized to the control group will receive individual wellness checks. This will occur through a strengths-based telephone conversation focused on wellness resources. Youth will be provided with tailored resources based on needs identified during the call. Youth will be offered the option for additional phone check-ins to coordinate access to community resources and connection to individualized behavioral health supports if desired.
Forging Hopeful Futures	Forging Hopeful Futures	Forging Hopeful Futures uses a group discussion format with activities that explore race, gender, class, identity, relationships, and multiple forms of violence. Forging Hopeful Futures is a 12 session curriculum for youth ages 13-19 that uses strengths-based and healing-centered approaches to critically examine structural forces that perpetuate racial and gender injustice, develop leadership skills in promoting gender equitable relationship norms, non-violent practices, and upstander skills, and enhance economic justice through job skills and employment opportunities. Through 12 sessions (3 hours/session) over a 6 to 12 week period, Forging Hopeful Futures combines racial, gender, and economic justice content with leadership development and workforce development opportunities.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Change in recent violence perpetration at 3 months	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	The primary outcome will be past 3-month youth violence perpetration. This will be measured by self-report on 3 items adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, using a past-3 month reporting interval: 1) physical fighting ("How many times were you in a physical fight?"), 2) threatening someone with a weapon ("How many times have you threatened someone with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?"), and 3) injuring someone with a weapon ("How many times have you injured someone with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?"). Each item will be assessed with 8 frequency response categories from 0 times to 12 or more times. A summary score will capture the past 3-month incidence of all 3 behaviors (possible range: 0- 21;lower score indicates better outcome)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Change in cyber dating abuse and peer abuse	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	8 items assess using technology to perpetrate abuse against a dating partner or peers. Summary score of any recent use of technology to perpetrate abuse against a dating partner or peers in the past 3 months, calculated as one point for each behavior then summed (possible range: 0-8; lower score indicates better outcome).
Change in recent violence perpetration at 6 months	At baseline and six months after program conclusion	This will be measured using the same 3 items outlined in the primary outcome, but assessed as a change from baseline to 6 months after program conclusion. This includes self-report on 3 items adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, using a past-3 month reporting interval: 1) physical fighting ("How many times were you in a physical fight?"), 2) threatening someone with a weapon ("How many times have you threatened someone with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?"), and 3) injuring someone with a weapon ("How many times have you injured someone with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?"). Each item will be assessed with 8 frequency response categories from 0 times to 12 or more times. A summary score will capture the past 3-month incidence of all 3 behaviors (possible range: 0- 21;lower score indicates better outcome)
Change in relationship abuse at 3 months	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	10 abusive behavior items, modified from Conflict Tactics Scale-2, assess for perpetration against dating partners or towards peers. Summary score of any recent use of violence in the past 3 months (physical, sexual and emotional relationship abuse) calculated as one point for each behavior then summed (possible range: 0-10; lower score indicates better outcome).
Change in sexual violence perpetration at 3 months	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	4 sexual violence perpetration items assess recent sexual violence perpetration (any/none). Summary score of any recent sexual violence perpetration in the past 3 months, calculated as one point for each behavior then summed (possible range: 0-4; lower score indicates better outcome).
Change in bullying perpetration	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	6 items to indicate frequency of bullying perpetration on 4-point frequency scale. Mean score of any recent bullying perpetration in the past 3 months, calculated as a mean score across the 6 items (possible range: 0-3; lower score indicates better outcome).
Change in cyberbullying perpetration	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	4-item scale adapted from a cyberbullying perpetration scale, assessing perpetration frequency on a 4-point frequency scale. Mean score of recent cyberbullying perpetration in the past 3 months, calculated as a mean across the 4 items (possible range:0-3; lower score indicated better outcome).
Change in weapon carrying	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	1 item adapted from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey asking about frequency of carrying a weapon in the past 30 days (measured on a 5-point frequency scale from 0 days to 6 or more days; possible range: 0-4; lower score indicates better outcome).
Change in sexual harassment	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	5 items assess frequency of perpetrating sexual harassing behaviors in the past 3 months, assessing perpetration frequency on a 5-point frequency scale. Mean score of recent sexual harassment perpetration in the past 3 months, calculated as a mean across the 5 items (possible range:0-4; lower score indicated better outcome).
Change in homophobic teasing	At baseline and three months after program conclusion	5-item scale with participants reporting how often they have perpetrated listed behaviors in the past 3 months (each item measured on a 6-point frequency scale from 0 times to 7 or more times). Mean score of recent homophobic teasing, calculated as a mean across the 5 items (possible range: 0-5; lower score indicates better outcome).

Trial Locations

Locations (2)

University of Pittsburgh; 🇺🇸 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Population Council; 🇺🇸 Washington, District of Columbia, United States