Mixed methodological pilot evaluates program effectiveness in preventing sexual exploitation among high school youth, highlighting implications for future evaluations.
Despite increasing concerns about child sexual exploitation (CSE), we know little about how to prevent this prevalent public health issue. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a mixed methodological pilot evaluation of a school-based program - READY to Stand® (RTS) - aimed at preventing CSE perpetration and victimization and increasing bystander intervention - among high school students in an urban setting. The RTS program includes six, 45-minute modules implemented in groups and provides students with psychoeducation on CSE, healthy relationship skills training, identification of safe people/resources, programming components to enhance valuing of self and others, bystander intervention training, and shifting school norms to be intolerant of all forms of violence, including CSE. Participants were 177 high school youth in one traditional and one alternative high school who completed surveys before participating in RTS. The follow-up survey was administered 1 month after the final program session. Youth also completed post-session surveys with open-ended items, and research staff completed class observations and fidelity checks. Results demonstrated high levels of acceptability, perceived impact, and safety, although suggestions for program enhancements (e.g. integrate more activities) were identified. Overall fidelity was 87.3%. Results indicated significant improvements in valuing self, bystander readiness to help, and help-seeking intentions following program participation. Item-level analyses also suggested potential improvements in prevention-related conversations with school personnel, whereas evidence for changes in social norms and commercial sexual exploitation knowledge was limited. Using findings from the current study, the RTS was revised in preparation for a larger scale evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edwards et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: