How Do Survivor and Mandatory Reporter Status Correlate with Program Outcomes for an Adult-Focused Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program?

ABSTRACT

This exploratory study investigated group differences and pre-post changes in knowledge, beliefs, and behavior by mandatory reporters and Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) survivor status for a CSA prevention training designed for the general public. Of the 8,114 study participants, 32% identified as having experienced CSA, and 77% indicated they were mandatory reporters for child abuse and neglect. Mandatory reporters had higher baseline knowledge about CSA than those who were not mandatory reporters and reported more CSA preventative behaviors. Mandatory reporters continued to have higher levels of knowledge following the training. Survivors of CSA also had higher baseline knowledge about CSA and preventative behavior scores than individuals who are not survivors of CSA. Unlike mandatory reporters, they experienced fewer increases in knowledge. At posttest, there was no evidence of a difference in knowledge between CSA survivors and non-CSA survivors. For items related to beliefs, mandatory reporters had higher baseline scores than other participants. However, they had smaller gains, so mandatory reporters and non-mandatory reporters had more similar beliefs related to CSA after the training. There were few differences between CSA survivors and non-survivors on baseline beliefs related to CSA, though CSA survivors reported greater increases in beliefs that CSA prevention is their responsibility and in the idea that they know what to do to prevent CSA. These results have significant results for the development and evaluation of trauma-informed prevention programming.

KEYWORDS:

• Child maltreatment
• prevention science
• mandated reporting
• adverse childhood experiences
• adult intervention
• online training
• education
• psychology

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a frequently occurring adverse childhood experience. Prevalence rates are estimated to be as high as one-in-four girls and one-in-twenty boys (Finkelhor et al., 2014), with even greater levels of elevation found among some clinical and geographic samples (Pan et al., 2021). Further, researchers in this field note that prevalence rates of CSA are likely to underestimate the magnitude of the problem (e.g., Pereda et al., 2009). The harmful impacts of traumatic childhood experiences are well documented (e.g., Chang et al., 2019; Copeland et al., 2018; De Bellis & Zisk, 2014; Hailes et al., 2019; Kitzmann et al., 2003; Merrick et al., 2017; Metcalfe et al., 2022; Spataro et al., 2004). Macrosystemic and exosystemic factors that result in few resources for prevention efforts may further compound adverse outcomes for children (Burke-Harris, 2018; Cortez et al., 2011; Herman, 1997).

CSA interventions and prevention curricula and have been designed for many populations of adults (e.g., Davis & Gidycz, 2000; Kenny, 2009; Mendelson & Letourneau, 2015; Ogunjimi et al., 2017; Tutty et al., 2020; Walsh et al., 2018), though few curricula specifically target the general public (Wurtele & Miller-Perrin, 2017). Leaders in the field have urged broad public involvement in prevention, arguing for the value of putting primary prevention in the hands of more individuals (e.g., Daro, 2010; Letourneau et al., 2014). Similarly, Benedetti (2012) advocated for the implementation of scalable CSA primary prevention strategies designed explicitly to engage the general public in community-based efforts. Increasing the population of adults who are prepared to identify and assist children who have experienced CSA may be particularly impactful. In a study of adult IPV and child abuse survivors – most of whom were first abused prior to six years-old – participants were asked how often someone tried to help or protect them when they experienced the abuse. To this question, 47% of all respondents reported “never” and 19% responded “rarely” (Todahl et al., 2017). Increasing the pool of adults who feel empowered to intervene may have tangible impacts for children experiencing abuse.

Stewards of children training

Stewards of Children (SOC) is a scalable, two-and-a-half-hour video-based CSA prevention program designed for the general public. Darkness to Light, a nonprofit focusing on CSA prevention, developed SOC and offers both facilitated, in-person sessions and an online format that includes interactive content (Darkness to Light, 2021). The training highlights the stories of CSA survivors and encourages achievable behaviors that may help to reduce CSA. Darkness to Light reports delivering SOC to over two million adults internationally (Darkness to Light, 2021). SOC is also rated as a promising practice by the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse and is the only US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sexual assault rape Model Program focusing on adult and general public engagement (Daro, 2022).

SOC is designed to increase participants’ CSA knowledge, alter participants’ beliefs and attitudes related to CSA prevention, and increase preventative behaviors related to CSA (Derrick et al., 2011; Letourneau et al., 2016; Rheingold et al., 2012, 2015; Taylor & Harris, 2018). Prior research has supported its effectiveness in these aims. For example, Bennett (2005) found that participants were more likely to (a) discuss issues of sexual abuse with a child or adult, (b) pay attention to signs of sexual abuse, and (c) drop in unexpectedly to ensure that a child is safe in the care of another adult. Additionally, SOC participants scored significantly higher on CSA prevention knowledge, attitude and beliefs relative to a random selection of residents with no SOC exposure (Todahl et al., 2021).

Researchers also have investigated longitudinal SOC outcomes. For example, knowledge and attitudes among childcare providers persisted to the three-month follow-up (Rheingold et al., 2015). Among a sample of 3,537 Texas educators, participants were more likely to report potential incidents of CSA to sexual abuse authorities one year following the completion of SOC (Townsend & Haviland, 2016). Further, a statewide SOC evaluation that followed a random selection of attendees in Oregon found that post-training increases remained substantively above baseline at the 18-month follow-up (Todahl et al., 2020). These findings also showed beneficial effects for CSA preventive behaviors. Eighteen months post-training, five CSA preventative behavior action types increased over and above the 6-month increase, and 10 actions remained equal to the 6-month observation.

Important populations for CSA research

Prior SOC research has not addressed outcomes for two important populations: mandatory reporters and survivors of CSA. These populations may find SOC content particularly salient. Mandatory reporters, individuals who are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect, have an important role in child maltreatment intervention and prevention systems (Aronowitz, 2017). In the United States, mandated reporters are usually individuals who come in professional contact with children and are designated by law to report reasonable suspicion of child abuse and neglect to the designated authorities (Mathews & Kenny, 2008), although state laws vary. By one estimate, among 4.0 million recent annual reports of suspected child abuse or neglect in the U.S., 63% were made by mandatory reporters (United StatesDepartment of Health and Human Services, 2017). Moreover, reports by mandatory reporters have significantly different substantiation rates relative to non-mandatory reporters; in a longitudinal study of 59,413 cases, reports by mandatory reporters were 6.3 times more likely to be substantiated (King et al., 2013).

Individuals who identify as CSA survivors offer an important perspective on child abuse prevention, intervention, and policy. As observed by Cortez et al. (2011), “Survivors have a unique understanding of abuse and have direct knowledge … survivors should be at the center of a new social response to trauma and regarded as experts of any effort to prevent abuse and violence (p. 139).” Advocates, researchers and others have characterized CSA survivors as instrumental in shaping: 1) practice and legislative policy (Bloom, 2013; Heffernan & Viggiani, 2015), 2) prevention initiatives (O’Brien et al., 2019; Sabri et al., 2019), 3) trauma healing (Cortez et al., 2011; Todahl et al., 2017), and 4) important views on legal procedures and interpersonal justice (McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019). Given that CSA survivors and mandatory reporters have important roles in CSA intervention and prevention efforts in many communities and members of these groups often participate in child abuse prevention training, it is useful to understand how training outcomes vary among individuals who do or do not identify as CSA survivors or as mandatory reporters for child abuse and neglect.

The present study

The present exploratory study sought to address these concerns in the context of a naturalistic, pre-post evaluation of SOC, which was delivered systematically across rural communities in Oregon and Siskiyou County, California (See Patton, 2014, for additional research plan information). Direct funding for ten implementation sites, serving a total of 24 rural counties, an annual conference, region-specific trainings, technical assistance, and team development was provided by the Ford Family Foundation as a part of a statewide prevention initiative titled Protect Our Children.

Our research questions are:

1. How do preventative behaviors, knowledge, and beliefs differ between SOC trainees who have and have not experienced CSA, as well as those who do or do not identify as a mandatory reporter?

2. Do posttest changes in CSA knowledge and beliefs among SOC trainees differ between participants who self-identify as survivors of CSA and those who do not?

3. Do posttest changes in CSA knowledge and beliefs differ by SOC trainees who do and do not self-identify as mandatory reporters of child maltreatment?

Method

Design and sampling procedures

All study procedures were approved by the University of Oregon Institutional Review Board. This study is a naturalistic, pre-post program evaluation. All adult (aged 18 or older) SOC trainees at 10 rural implementation sites across Oregon and Siskiyou County, CA were eligible for this study. For the purposes of this study, “rural” was defined as communities at or below 35,000 in population and not adjacent to or part of a metropolitan area. Trainings were open to community members. Study participants (n = 8,114), following consent, completed paper and pencil measures immediately prior to the training and immediately thereafter. The consent form noted that a question would ask if they had experienced CSA and clarified that they would not be asked details about personal experiences of abuse. The training was facilitated by community organizations that were able to offer resources or support as relevant or requested. Eighty-six percent of invited trainees completed all measures and were participants in this study. SOC trainings were offering in both English and Spanish. Surveys were completed in both English and Spanish, but only English surveys were included in this analysis due to the small sample size of the Spanish surveys.

Participant characteristics

Participants were likely to be women, with 76.3% identifying as female, 23.4% identifying as male, and 0.3% identifying as nonbinary or a different gender category. The majority of participants were White (82%), 7.4% identified as Latino/a/e or Hispanic, 3.7% as Indigenous American or Alaska Native, 2.2% as Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.1% as Black or African American, and 3.6% another identity. The mean participant age was 43.9. Participants had a range of incomes, with 7.7% reporting an income of less than $10,000 USD per year; 12.0% between $10,001 and $25,000; 10.8% between $25,000 and $34,999; 14.4% between $35,000 and $49,999; 21.5% between $50,000 and $74,999; 14.8% between $75,000 and $99,999; 13.4% between $100,000 and $149,999; and 5.4% above $150,000. Most participants (52%) had at least a four-year college degree. Educational background was varied, with 1.6% reporting less than a high school diploma, 9.5% reporting a high school diploma or GED, 2.8% reporting vocational training, 2.0% reporting a vocational or technical degree, 19.2% reporting some college but no degree, 11.2% reporting a two-year college degree, 20.8% reporting a four-year college degree, 6.1% reporting some graduate school but no degree, and 26.5% reporting a graduate degree. Sixty-five percent of participants were considered residents of rural communities. The top affiliations among all participants were K-12 educators/staff (35%), social service organizations (12%), and faith communities (12%).

Both Oregon and California designate professional roles that require mandatory reporting of child abuse and neglect (undefine d, d). For the purposes of this study, participants self-identified whether they were a mandated reporter. Relative to the general population, study participants disproportionately identified themselves as mandatory reporters (77%; n = 6,248).

Immediately following the training, study participants were invited to respond to an item that inquired about their personal experience with child sexual abuse (i.e., “Based on the definition of child sexual abuse used in the Stewards of Children training, I was sexually abused in my childhood.”) Thirty-two percent (n = 2,596) of the participants endorsed this item. For the purposes of this study, these participants are considered survivors of CSA. Additionally, 77% (n = 6,248) of study participants indicated they were mandatory reporters for child abuse and neglect.

Measures

Behaviors

CSA preventive behaviors were measured with The Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Behaviors Scale – Revised, a 16-item instrument adapted from Rheingold et al. (2015) based on behavior from the past six months. A sample item is, “…evaluated the potential for sexual abuse to occur when deciding whether my child or another child should participate in an activity.” A CSA preventative behavior total score was computed as the number of behaviors positively endorsed.

Knowledge

Knowledge of CSA was measured with The Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Knowledge Questionnaire – Revised, comprised of 14 true or false items addressing factual information about CSA. Previous versions of the CSA Knowledge Questionnaire have been used in SOC research (Rheingold et al., 2015). A sample item is, “When telling about an incident of sexual abuse, children and teens tend to exaggerate what happened to them.” Each participant was given a total score representing the percentage of correct answers.

Beliefs

Beliefs about CSA were assessed using four items with a four-point response option (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree), which make up The Child Sexual Abuse Attitudes and Beliefs Scale. These items were originally derived from a participatory action research project (“Survivor Voices”) and were developed by survivors to assess the perspectives that they viewed to be most salient in the prevention of sexual violence (see Cortez et al., 2011; Metcalfe & Todahl, 2023). A sample item is, “It is my responsibility to help protect all children from sexual abuse.”

All three measures were adapted from previous research using an iterative review process based on the feedback of both content experts in sexual violence as well as survivors of CSA. Revisions included removals of double negatives to increase clarity for participants and elimination of knowledge items for which more than 95% of participants answered correctly at the pretest. Factor analyses showed adequate loadings for all included items and measures were further evaluated for content validity, test-retest reliability, and other measures of reliability. Full information about measure adaptation and validation is available from Metcalfe and Todahl (2023).

Data analyses

All analyses were run in SAS 9.2. Preliminary analyses included a descriptive summary of the sample and study outcomes. We examined histograms and measures of skew and kurtosis to evaluate the appropriateness of continuous modeling of the CSA knowledge and preventative behavior scores and screened the scores for extreme outliers, defined as Z-scores greater than 3.5. We used independent sample t-tests to evaluate whether pre-training preventative behavior scores differed as a function of mandatory reporter status and disclosure of history of childhood sexual abuse. Analyses for mandatory reporters and CSA survivors were separate analyses. We investigated the differences between the use of CSA preventative behavior based on mandatory reporter status and CSA survivor status. Next, we used linear fixed effects growth models, fit with SAS 9.2 PROC MIXED (SAS/STAT, 2011) and estimated with maximum likelihood, to examine change in knowledge scores from the pre- to post-training assessments as a function of mandatory reporter status and disclosure of history of childhood sexual abuse. We further used SAS 9.2 PROC GENMOD (SAS/STAT, 2011), estimated with a cumulative logit link and a multinomial distribution, to evaluate whether change in pre- to post-training ordinal-scaled attitude and belief items differed as a function of mandatory reporter status and disclosure of history of childhood sexual abuse. For all analyses, the reference categories were not being a mandatory reporter and not disclosing a history of childhood sexual abuse.

Results

Rates of missing data at the pre- and post-training assessment were minimal (less than 5%) for all measures. Examination of histograms and measures of skew and kurtosis confirmed the knowledge and preventative behavior scores approximated normal distributions and extreme outliers were detected for less than 1% of the knowledge scores at pre- and post-training.

CSA preventative behavior

The average preventative behavior score at baseline was 5.88 (SD = 3.69) for participants who indicated they were mandatory reporters and 4.04 (SD = 3.58) for those who did not indicate they were mandatory reporters. The difference in preventative behavior scores, as a function of mandatory reporter status, was statistically significant (t[7734] = 18.53, SE = .10, p < .001). This was a medium effect size (d = .51; Cohen, 1988). The average preventative behavior score at baseline was 6.28 (SD = 3.91) for participants who disclosed they were survivors of childhood sexual abuse and 5.00 (SD = 3.58) for those who did not disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse. The difference in preventative behavior scores, as a function of disclosure of childhood sexual abuse, was also statistically significant (t[7178] = 13.67, SE = .09, p < .001) and associated with a small to medium effect (d = .35).

CSA knowledge

CSA knowledge scores, by mandatory reporter status and disclosure of CSA, at both pre- and posttest, are reported in Table 1. Results from the fixed-effects linear models of change in CSA knowledge scores are in Table 2. At pretest, participants who were not mandatory reporters scored an average of 4.55 points lower than participants who were mandatory reporter on the measure of CSA knowledge (d = .37). The change in scores from pre- to post-training did not differ as a function of mandatory reporter status (p = .190). Thus, the higher levels of knowledge displayed by mandatory reporters maintained through to post-training. Mandatory reporters continued to have higher scores at posttest, showing scores that were 3.95 points higher than their peers who were not mandatory reporters after the training. The difference between mandatory reporters and non-mandatory reports continued to be statistically significant at posttest (t[7734] = 11.57, SE = .34, p < .001, d = .33).

Table 1. Measures of CSA knowledge scores by mandatory Reporter status and survivor of CSA status.

	Pre-training		Post-training
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Mandatory reporter status
Mandatory reporter	72.71	12.14	83.53	13.38
Not a mandatory reporter	68.16	13.39	79.58	14.40
CSA survivor status
Survivor of CSA	72.49	12.92	82.58	12.85
No history of CSA disclosed	71.19	12.65	82.81	12.48

SD = standard deviation, CSA = childhood sexual abuse.

Table 2. Results from mixed-effects growth models of change in CSA knowledge scores.

Model/Effect	Estimate	SE	t-value	p-value
Mandatory reporter model
Intercept	68.16	0.30	227.23	<.001
Mandatory status	4.55	0.34	13.32	<.001
Time	11.30	0.35	32.66	<.001
Mandatory status × time	−0.51	0.39	−1.31	.190
Survivor of CSA model
Intercept	71.19	0.18	393.06	<.001
CSA survivor status	1.30	0.32	4.03	<.001
Time	11.58	0.20	57.55	<.001
CSA survivor status × time	−1.53	0.36	−4.28	<.001

SE = standard error, CSA = childhood sexual abuse.

Differences were also investigated based on reported personal history of CSA. Pre-training CSA knowledge scores were an average of 1.3 points higher for participants who disclosed a history of CSA than for participants who did not disclose this history, (d = .10, p < .001). The change in scores from pre- to post-training was approximately 1.5 points lower for participants who disclosed a history of CSA, relative to those who did not disclose a history of CSA (p < .001) a small effect size (d = −.12). At posttest, there was no evidence of a difference in CSA knowledge between participants who disclosed a personal history of CSA and those who did not (t[7178] = 0.73, SE = .34, p = .467).

CSA beliefs

Table 3 provides the frequency of response to each CSA belief item, separately by mandatory reporter status, and Table 4 shows the results from growth models examining differential change for these items by mandatory reporter status. At the pretest, mandatory reporters were more likely to endorse “It is my responsibility to protect all children from sexual abuse” (p < .001) and “I know what I can do to prevent child abuse in my community” (p < .001). However, mandatory reporters had a significantly smaller odds change for both responsibility (e.^63–.17 = 1.58 for mandatory reporters relative to 1.88 for non-mandatory reporters; p = .006) and for belief that they know what they can do (e.^3.17–.46 = 15.03 for mandatory reporters relative to 23.81 for non-mandatory reporters; p < .001). There was no evidence of a pretest difference between mandatory reporters and non-mandatory reporters for the other two items, “Child sexual abuse can be significantly reduced in my community” (p = .266) and “Our community is working together to reduce child sexual abuse,” (p = .113) and no significant difference in the change for mandatory reporters compared to other participants (p = .393 and p = .288, respectively). Endorsement of all items increased after completing the training (ps < .001) across groups.

Table 3. Measures of CSA beliefs by mandatory Reporter status.

	Percent (%) Reported
Item/Group	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree
Child sexual abuse can be very significantly reduced in my community.
Mandatory reporter
Pre-training	0.5	5.2	69.6	24.7
Post-training	0.2	0.7	46.8	52.5
Not a mandatory reporter
Pre-training	0.5	5.7	67.2	26.6
Post-training	0.5	1.2	45.4	52.9
It is my responsibility to help protect all children from sexual abuse.
Mandatory reporter
Pre-training	0.8	2.3	25.9	71.1
Post-training	0.2	0.6	19.9	79.4
Not a mandatory reporter
Pre-training	0.4	5.0	37.8	56.7
Post-training	0.4	1.0	28.1	70.5
I know what I can do to prevent child sexual abuse in my community.
Mandatory reporter
Pre-training	1.6	33.2	54.9	10.3
Post-training	0.2	0.6	42.8	56.4
Not a mandatory reporter
Pre-training	3.8	47.9	40.7	7.5
Post-training	0.3	0.9	48.7	50.0
Our community is working together to reduce child sexual abuse.
Mandatory reporter
Pre-training	1.1	19.7	67.2	12.0
Post-training	0.2	4.7	59.6	35.5
Not a mandatory reporter
Pre-training	1.5	22.9	62.3	13.3
Post-training	0.4	6.8	56.6	36.3

Table 4. Results from growth models of change in CSA attitude and belief items as a function of mandatory Reporter status.

Item//Effect	Estimate	SE	Z-value	p-value	Odds
Child sexual abuse can be very significantly reduced in my community.
Mandatory status	−0.07	0.06	−1.11	.266	0.93
Time	1.18	0.05	21.57	<.001	3.25
Mandatory status × time	0.05	0.06	0.85	.393	1.05
It is my responsibility to help protect all children from sexual abuse.
Mandatory status	0.64	0.05	11.40	<.001	1.90
Time	0.63	0.06	11.93	<.001	1.88
Mandatory status × time	−0.17	0.06	−2.70	.006	0.84
I know what I can do to prevent child sexual abuse in my community.
Mandatory status	0.70	0.06	12.55	<.001	2.01
Time	3.17	0.07	47.71	<.001	23.81
Mandatory status × time	−0.46	0.07	−6.82	<.001	.63
Our community is working together to reduce child sexual abuse.
Mandatory status	0.10	0.06	1.59	.113	1.11
Time	1.49	0.06	25.79	<.001	4.44
Mandatory status × time	−0.07	0.06	−1.06	.288	0.93

SE = standard error. Estimate is the cumulative logit predicting the probability of endorsing higher ordered values (i.e., toward “strongly agree”).

Table 5 provides the frequency of response to the CSA belief items, separately by CSA survivor status, and Table 6 the results from growth models examining differential change by CSA survivor status. There was no evidence of a difference at the pretest for CSA survivors compared to other participants for three of the four beliefs, including “Child sexual abuse can be very significantly reduced in my community” (p = .148), “It is my responsibility to help protect all children from sexual abuse” (p = .252), and “I know what I can do to prevent child sexual abuse in my community” (p = .457). CSA survivors were less likely to endorse “Our community is working together to reduce child sexual abuse” than other participants at pretest (p = .003). After the training, the CSA survivors had a significantly greater increase than non-survivors for “Child sexual abuse can be very significantly reduced in my community” (p = .048), “It is my responsibility to help protect all children from sexual abuse” (p = .018), and “Our community is working together to reduce child sexual abuse” (p < .001). There was no significant difference for the item “I know what I can do to prevent child sexual abuse in my community” (p = .063).

Table 5. Measures of CSA attitudes and beliefs by survivor of CSA status.

	Percent (%) Reported
Item/Group	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree
Child sexual abuse can be very significantly reduced in my community.
Survivor of CSA
Pre-training	0.5	6.1	66.1	27.2
Post-training	0.3	0.9	42.7	56.0
No history of CSA disclosed
Pre-training	0.8	2.7	28.0	68.5
Post-training	0.3	0.6	19.3	79.8
It is my responsibility to help protect all children from sexual abuse.
Survivor of CSA
Pre-training	2.4	36.8	50.0	10.7
Post-training	0.3	0.7	41.0	58.0
No history of CSA disclosed
Pre-training	1.7	23.5	61.8	12.9
Post-training	0.4	5.9	56.5	37.2
I know what I can do to prevent child sexual abuse in my community.
Survivor of CSA
Pre-training	0.4	4.9	70.5	24.2
Post-training	0.3	0.8	48.0	50.9
No history of CSA disclosed
Pre-training	0.7	2.9	29.3	67.1
Post-training	0.2	0.8	22.9	76.2
Our community is working together to reduce child sexual abuse.
Survivor of CSA
Pre-training	2.1	36.9	52.1	8.9
Post-training	0.2	0.8	45.1	53.9
No history of CSA disclosed
Pre-training	0.9	19.3	67.8	12.0
Post-training	0.2	4.8	59.8	35.1

Table 6. Results from growth models of change in CSA attitude and belief items as a function of survivor of CSA status.

Item//Effect	Estimate	SE	Z-value	p-value	Odds
Child sexual abuse can be very significantly reduced in my community.
Survivor of CSA status	0.08	0.06	1.45	.148	1.08
Time	1.19	0.03	36.67	<.001	3.29
Survivor of CSA status × time	0.11	0.06	1.98	.048	1.12
It is my responsibility to help protect all children from sexual abuse.
Survivor of CSA status	0.07	0.05	1.15	.252	1.07
Time	0.47	0.03	14.64	<.001	1.60
Survivor of CSA status × time	0.14	0.06	2.36	.018	1.15
I know what I can do to prevent child sexual abuse in my community.
Survivor of CSA status	0.04	0.05	0.74	.457	1.04
Time	2.78	0.04	63.84	<.001	16.12
Survivor of CSA × time	0.11	0.06	1.84	.063	1.11
Our community is working together to reduce child sexual abuse.
Survivor of CSA status	−0.17	0.06	−2.97	.003	0.84
Time	1.38	0.04	40.59	<.001	3.98
Survivor of CSA × time	0.21	0.06	3.71	<.001	1.23

SE = standard error, CSA = childhood sexual abuse. Estimate is the cumulative logit predicting the probability of endorsing higher ordered values (i.e., toward “strongly agree”).

Discussion

Though SOC is an intervention with evidence of effectiveness overall, this study is the first to investigate knowledge, beliefs, and preventive behavior among SOC participants based on CSA survivor status and mandatory reporter status. Several differences in these groups emerged. Mandatory reporters had higher baseline knowledge about CSA than their counterparts who were not mandatory reporters and reported more CSA preventative behaviors, which may reflect their prior training in this topic (e.g., see Walsh et al., 2022). These differences in knowledge persisted following the training. Mandatory reporters were also more likely to endorse pretest beliefs that CSA can be reduced in their community, that it is their responsibility to protect children from sexual abuse, and that they know what they can do to prevent CSA. There was no difference between the two groups in endorsement of the extent to which the community is working together to reduce CSA at posttest. Because mandatory reporters had smaller gains, following SOC training, mandatory reporters and non-mandatory reporters had more similar beliefs related to CSA. Survivors of CSA also had higher baseline knowledge about CSA and preventative behavior scores than individuals who did not disclose a personal history of CSA, but, unlike mandatory reporters, they experienced fewer increases in knowledge. At posttest, there was no evidence of a difference in knowledge between CSA survivors and non-CSA survivors. There were also few differences between CSA survivors and non-survivors on baseline beliefs related to CSA, although CSA survivors reported greater increases in beliefs that CSA prevention is their responsibility and in the idea that they know what to do to prevent CSA. CSA survivors also had lower baseline endorsement of the idea that the community was working together to prevent CSA. Preventive behavior among CSA survivors and mandatory reporters was much higher than rates previously reported among randomly selected participants with no SOC exposure (e.g., Todahl et al., 2020). This further highlights the strengths that these populations may have in community-based intervention.

This study has important implications for the implementation of public-facing CSA prevention efforts. This study supports the use of SOC as a potentially beneficial broad-scale intervention. Importantly, helpful knowledge and beliefs increased across all groups. This finding is consistent with previous research (Derrick et al., 2011; Rheingold et al., 2015; Taylor & Harris, 2018). However, CSA survivors demonstrated fewer benefits than non-CSA survivors in knowledge, contrasting with mandatory reporters, whose higher level of knowledge was maintained at the posttest. This may reflect barriers such as greater levels of distress in viewing the materials, interfering with learning, or greater difficulty in changing knowledge that is highly personally salient. Considering that 32% of the participants in the training had experienced CSA, this could be an indication that the impacts on survivors in the audience should be a greater consideration during program development. Nevertheless, all groups did experience improvement as a part of participation in SOC.

This study has several important limitations to acknowledge. First, SOC training attendees do not represent the demographics of participating communities – participants were disproportionately white, female, and working in careers that require mandatory reporting. Measures were all self-reported, which may result in self-report bias or potential misgroupings. Additionally, CSA survivor status likely reflects a range of survivor experiences given the diverse range of experiences in this category (Mathews & Collin-Vézina, 2019). Because this was collected as a binary variable, this study may not highlight important heterogeneity among survivors. The present study also does not include follow-up data to investigate longitudinal changes across these groups. Finally, this study is a pretest-posttest design rather than a randomized trial.

Future research should address how knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors change longitudinally following SOC training. Use of a control group (either as a part of a randomized controlled trial or using alternative designs such as regression discontinuity) may be especially helpful in estimating the impacts of SOC training on local communities. Greater tailoring for specific populations is also an important future task for both researchers and community stakeholders. Research on the integration of public-facing curricula such as SOC with other child maltreatment prevention-focused interventions (e.g., Kennedy et al., 2016; Metcalfe et al., 2021) should be investigated to evaluate multisystemic opportunities to prevent abuse of children. Spanish-speaking trainees may also be important to consider explicitly in future research, given that they were disproportionately underrepresented in survey respondents. Since Spanish language SOC training is a translation of the English-language SOC training, it is possible that cultural relevance may interfere with participation in the training and/or associated research or program evaluation.

Ethical standards and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation [institutional and national] and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by The Ford Family Foundation (TFFF), Roseburg, OR, under Grant #443730.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Ford Family Foundation (TFFF), Roseburg, OR, under Grant #443730.

Notes on contributors

Jeffrey L. Todahl

Jeffrey L. Todahl, is an Associate Professor and the director for the Couples and Family Therapy Program (Counseling Psychology and Human Services Department) at the University of Oregon and Director of the Center for the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect.

Simone Piper

Simone Piper, is the Research Coordinator for the Center for the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect at the University of Oregon.

Robyn E. Metcalfe

Robyn E. Metcalfe, is a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at the University of Oregon. Her research focuses on supporting parents in effective parenting behaviours, childhood trauma, and criminal justice-related issues.

Stephanie C. Luther

Stephanie C. Luther, is a doctoral student in Prevention Science at the University of Oregon. Their research interests include interventions for the prevention of youth suicide, child abuse, and teen dating violence.

Phyllis D. Barkhurst

Phyllis D. Barkhurst, is a co-founder of the Center for the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect. Keavy Cook is the director of Children, Youth & Families at the Ford Family Foundation. Mary Ratliff is the Protect Our Children Project Director at Tides.

Jeff M. Gau

Jeff M. Gau, is a Research Associate at the University of Oregon in the Center on Human Development.