Green Dot is a school-based, gender violence prevention intervention for young people aged between 14 and 18 years. 12 to 15% of the student body attend four five-hour training sessions occurring throughout the school years. These students then act as opinion leaders to encourage safer sexual attitudes and behaviours with their friends and school peers. Green Dot educators also provide motivational speeches to the entire school population on an annual basis.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
14 to 18 years old
School-based
Green Dot is a school-based intervention aimed at reducing the incidence of sexual violence in students attending secondary and sixth-form schools.
Green Dot educators provide motivational speeches to the entire school population at regular intervals throughout the school year. This is augmented by more intensive training offered to 12 to 15% of the student body through four five-hour sessions provided at regular intervals throughout the school year. The expectation is that the trained students will act as opinion leaders to help disseminate and normalise the idea that sexual violence should not be tolerated and that everyone has a role in preventing it.
During the training sessions, students learn pro-social behaviours aimed at establishing two school norms: (1) dating violence, sexual assault, and bullying will not be tolerated, and (2) everyone is expected to do their part.
Specifically, student leaders are introduced to the concept of red and green dots that bystanders can use to identify precursors of sexual violence and intervene. Red dots are evidence of sexual violence or known warning signs. Examples of red dots include acts of sexual violence (rape, assault), stalking behaviours, sexual coercion, and intimidation, with the aim of inducing fear. A red dot is also an individual choice to do nothing in the face of a potentially high-risk situation.
Green dots are strategies that bystanders can use to identify the red dots and intervene. Examples of reactive green dots include:
Throughout their training, students are also helped to implement proactive green dots through campaigns, events, and fundraisers. Examples of proactive green dots include increasing awareness about the signs of sexual violence, encouraging peers to take a stance against sexually violent behaviours, or posting a bystander intervention story on social media.
14 to 18 years
All students attending secondary school and sixth form.
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Sexual violence during adolescence is common and increases the risk of poor mental health, repeat victimisation and other poor outcomes in adulthood.
Science-based assumption
Sexual violence in adolescence is encouraged and discouraged by social norms.
Science-based assumption
Students attending secondary school and sixth from can shift social norms by reducing the acceptance of interpersonal violence, and reporting sexual violence when it does occur.
Intervention
Students learn about the ‘red dots’ or warning signs associated with sexual violence so they can prevent or respond to them through effective ‘green dot’ behaviours.
Short-term
Increased recognition of warning signs for interpersonal violence including sexual assault and dating violence
Increased bystander intervention behaviours
Reduced acceptance of sexual violence or intimidating behaviours amongst peers.
Medium-term
Fewer young people commit or experience sexual violence.
Long-term
An increased likelihood of healthy sexual and dating behaviours in adulthood.
Students in a school setting aged 14 to 18.
Green Dot is delivered in multiple sessions of one to six hours’ duration across multiple years to groups of 25 to 35 young people.
The intervention is delivered through two components:
Green Dot educators, teachers and student leaders.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Contact person: Kristen Parks
Organisation: Alteristic
Email address: Parks@alteristic.org
Website/s: https://alteristic.org/services/green-dot/
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
Green Dot’s most rigorous evidence comes from a cluster RCT conducted in the United States, consistent with Foundations’ Level 2+ evidence strength threshold.
This study identified statistically significant reductions in reports of sexual violence, sexual harassment, and stalking.
Green Dot has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but we cannot be confident that the programme caused the improvement.
| Identified in search | 18 |
| Studies reviewed | 1 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 1 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 0 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | 17 |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | Over 20,000 students living in the US state of Kentucky attending grades 9–12 in US high schools. The gender distribution was evenly balanced. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities | 85% White American. Other ethnicities not reported. |
| Population risk factors | A significant portion of the sample came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and 45% were eligible for reduced-price school meals. |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 2+ |
| Citations | Coker, A.L., Bush, H.M., Cook-Craig, P.G., DeGue, S., Clear, E.R., Brancato, C.J., Fisher, B.S. & Recktenwald, E.A. (2017) RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 52 (5), 566–578. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies:
Azam, M. T., Bush, H. M., Coker, A. L. & Westgate, P. M. (2021) Effect sizes and intra-cluster correlation coefficients measured from the Green Dot High School study for guiding sample size calculations when designing future violence prevention cluster randomized trials in school settings. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 23, 100831.
Banyard, V., Edwards, K. & Rizzo, A. (2019) ‘What would the neighbors do?’ Measuring sexual and domestic violence prevention social norms among youth and adults. Journal of Community Psychology. 47 (8), 1817–1833
Banyard, V. L., Edwards, K. M., Rizzo, A. J., Rothman, E. F., Greenberg, P. & Kearns, M. C. (2020) Improving social norms and actions to prevent sexual and intimate partner violence: A pilot study of the impact of green dot community on youth. Journal of Prevention and Health Promotion. 1 (2), 183–211.
Coker, A. L., Heather M. Bush, Zhengyan Huang, Candace J. Brancato, Emily R. Clear & Diane R. Follingstad (2021) How does Green Dot bystander training in high school and beyond impact attitudes toward violence and sexism in a prospective cohort? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 37 (15–16).
Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R. & DeGue, S. (2016) Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 50 (3), 295–302.
Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R. & DeGue, S. (2015) Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women. 21 (12), 1507–1527.
Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Williams, C. M., Fisher, B. S., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S. & Hegge, L. M. (2011) Evaluation of Green Dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women. 17 (6), 777–796.
Cooper, C. (2018) Bystander intervention: Examining recognition and response to sexual violence on a college campus [Dissertation, Auburn University].
Cristofano, J. (2014) Bystander behaviors and attitudes in college students before and after Green Dot bystander intervention training. Psychology Honors Papers. 47.
Davidov, D. M., Hill, K., Bush, H. M. & Coker, A. L. (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), 1701–1726.
Hollis, B. F. (2018) A single campus study of the Green Dot bystander intervention program [Dissertation, Old Dominion University].
Kelly, M. & Wilkinson, L. (2018) Implementing the Green Dot bystander intervention program to promote respectful workplaces in the construction trades in Oregon (No. NITC-RR-1078). National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC).
Mennicke, A., Bush, H. M., Brancato, C. J. & Coker, A. L. (2021) Bystander intervention efficacy to reduce teen dating violence among high school youth who did and did not witness parental partner violence: A path analysis of a cluster RCT. Journal of Family Violence. 36 (7), 755–771.
Starnes, C. P. (2016) Evaluating a bystander intervention program on reproductive coercion: Using quasi-experimental design strategies to address methodologic issues in randomized community prevention trials. Theses and Dissertations – Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 10.
Yaakoby, N. R. (2018) Reducing power based personal violence with the implementation of the Green Dot initiative at Kalamazoo College [Dissertation, Kalamazoo College].
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.
