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.
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.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
753
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.
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
RECRUITINGOfficial School Absences
A count of the number of school absences of young people.
Time frame: Six-Months Post-Intervention
Official Arrest Records
A count of official arrest records of young people.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: 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.
Time frame: Two-months post intervention
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.