COVID-19 studies are our top priority. For all other trials, there is a 4-week delay in processing a trial submitted/resubmitted to the ANZCTR and additional delays for updates of registered trials. We appreciate your patience.

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this information for consumers
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov

For full trial details, please see the original record at https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04281966




Registration number
NCT04281966
Ethics application status
Date submitted
20/02/2020
Date registered
24/02/2020
Date last updated
9/03/2020

Titles & IDs
Public title
Testing the Efficacy of the Ability School Engagement Partnership Program (ASEP)
Scientific title
Testing the Efficacy of the Ability School Engagement Partnership Program (ASEP)
Secondary ID [1] 0 0
2019002851
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Trial acronym
ASEP
Linked study record

Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
School Attendance 0 0
Welfare Dependence 0 0
Antisocial Behavior 0 0
Condition category
Condition code
Mental Health 0 0 0 0
Psychosis and personality disorders

Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Behaviour - Ability School Engagement Program Conference

Experimental: Experiment - For young people from schools randomly assigned to the experimental ASEP condition will participate in the ASEP intervention. The ASEP intervention is a Third-Party Policing partnership that involves a partnership between police and school, an ASEP conference and follow up which is organized and led by a conference facilitator with the young person, their parent (or guardian), a school representative (e.g., teacher), and a uniformed school-based police officer. The police and school representatives will be trained by the facilitator to utilize procedurally just dialogue during the entirety of the conference. The ASEP conference script will utilize a procedurally just dialogue to increase both the young person and their parents' perceptions and knowledge of the legitimacy of the truancy laws, police, and schools in order to gain willing compliance to follow the rules.

No Intervention: Control - Participants allocated to the control condition will be given the "business-as-usual' approach to handling school non-attendance. The control participants will be sanctioned in the usual manner for engaging in truancy through the requirements denoted in the Queensland Education (General Provisions) Act (2006).


Behaviour: Ability School Engagement Program Conference
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.

Intervention code [1] 0 0
Behaviour
Comparator / control treatment
Control group

Outcomes
Primary outcome [1] 0 0
Official School Absences - A count of the number of school absences of young people.
Timepoint [1] 0 0
Six-Months Post-Intervention
Primary outcome [2] 0 0
Official Arrest Records - A count of official arrest records of young people.
Timepoint [2] 0 0
Six-Months Post Intervention
Primary outcome [3] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [3] 0 0
Two-months post intervention
Primary outcome [4] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [4] 0 0
Two-months post intervention
Primary outcome [5] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [5] 0 0
Two-months post intervention
Primary outcome [6] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [6] 0 0
Two-months post intervention
Primary outcome [7] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [7] 0 0
Two-months post intervention
Primary outcome [8] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [8] 0 0
Two-months post intervention
Primary outcome [9] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [9] 0 0
Two-months post intervention
Primary outcome [10] 0 0
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.
Timepoint [10] 0 0
Two-months post intervention

Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
- High school aged young people only, aged 12 to 16;

- Have 15% or more unexplained absences over each other previous two school terms;

- Have no known legitimate explanation for absences (e.g., ongoing medical issue); and

- Have at least one responsibly adult in their lives (e.g., parent, guardian, or carer)
who provides social and/or financial support.
Minimum age
12 Years
Maximum age
16 Years
Gender
Both males and females
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Key exclusion criteria
- None

Study design
Purpose of the study
Prevention
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Who is / are masked / blinded?



Intervention assignment
Parallel
Other design features
Phase
Not Applicable
Type of endpoint(s)
Statistical methods / analysis

Recruitment
Recruitment status
Recruiting
Data analysis
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Other reasons
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Actual
Sample size
Target
Accrual to date
Final
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
QLD
Recruitment hospital [1] 0 0
The University of Queensland - Brisbane
Recruitment postcode(s) [1] 0 0
4072 - Brisbane

Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Other
Name
The University of Queensland
Address
Country
Other collaborator category [1] 0 0
Other
Name [1] 0 0
Restorative Outcomes Australia
Address [1] 0 0
Country [1] 0 0
Other collaborator category [2] 0 0
Other
Name [2] 0 0
Department of Education, Queensland
Address [2] 0 0
Country [2] 0 0
Other collaborator category [3] 0 0
Other
Name [3] 0 0
Queensland Police Service
Address [3] 0 0
Country [3] 0 0
Other collaborator category [4] 0 0
Other
Name [4] 0 0
Australian Department of Social Services
Address [4] 0 0
Country [4] 0 0

Ethics approval
Ethics application status

Summary
Brief summary
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.
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04281966
Trial related presentations / publications
Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., Mazerolle, L., & Eggins, E. (2019). Parental and student perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy in the context of truancy: Results from a randomized field trial. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 52(4), 534-557.
Bennett, S., Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Eggins, E., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). Truancy intervention reduces crime: Results from a randomized field trial. Justice Quarterly, 35(2), 309-329.
Cardwell, S. M., Mazerolle, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Parental attachment and truant rationalizations of antisocial behavior: findings from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Crime and Justice, 1-19.
Cardwell, S. M., Mazerolle, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Truancy intervention and violent offending: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49.
Cardwell, S. M., Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Changing the relationship between impulsivity and antisocial behavior: the impact of a school engagement program. Crime & Delinquency, 65(8), 1076-1101.
Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989 Feb;56(2):267-83.
Cohn, E. S., Trinkner, R. J., Rebellon, C. J., Van Gundy, K. T., & Cole, L. M. (2012). Legal attitudes and legitimacy: Extending the integrated legal socialization model. Victims & Offenders, 7(4), 385-406.
Mazerolle, L. (2014). The power of policing partnerships: Sustaining the gains. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 341-365.
Mazerolle L, Antrobus E, Bennett S, Eggins E. Reducing Truancy and Fostering a Willingness to Attend School: Results from a Randomized Trial of a Police-School Partnership Program. Prev Sci. 2017 May;18(4):469-480. doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0771-7.
Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Cardwell, S. M., Piquero, A. R., & Bennett, S. (2019). Harmonizing legal socialization to reduce antisocial behavior: Results from a randomized field trial of truanting young people. Justice Quarterly, 1-28.
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., Cardwell, S. M., Eggins, E., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). Disrupting the pathway from truancy to delinquency: a randomized field trial test of the longitudinal impact of a school engagement program. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(4), 663-689.
Murphy, K., & Mearns, M. (2008). The Public Safety and Security in Australia Survey: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security (Working Paper, October 2008). The Australian National University.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513-548.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47(4), 1265-1293.
Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Nov 27;5:63.
Trinkner, R. (2012). Testing the procedural justice model of legal socialization: Expanding beyond the legal world. (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
Trinkner R, Cohn ES, Rebellon CJ, Van Gundy K. Don't trust anyone over 30: parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent behavior over time. J Adolesc. 2012 Feb;35(1):119-32. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.05.003. Epub 2011 Jun 12.
Trinkner R, Cohn ES. Putting the "social" back in legal socialization: procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law Hum Behav. 2014 Dec;38(6):602-17. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000107. Epub 2014 Sep 22.
Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med. 1997;4(1):92-100.
Haver A, Akerjordet K, Caputi P, Furunes T, Magee C. Measuring mental well-being: A validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in Norwegian and Swedish. Scand J Public Health. 2015 Nov;43(7):721-7. doi: 10.1177/1403494815588862. Epub 2015 Jun 3.
Stewart-Brown S, Tennant A, Tennant R, Platt S, Parkinson J, Weich S. Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Feb 19;7:15. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-15.
Taggart, F., Stewart-Brown, S., & Parkinson, J. (2015). Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) User Guide, Version 2. NHS Health Scotland.
Public notes

Contacts
Principal investigator
Name 0 0
Lorraine Mazerolle, Ph.D.
Address 0 0
The University of Queensland
Country 0 0
Phone 0 0
Fax 0 0
Email 0 0
Contact person for public queries
Name 0 0
Lorraine Mazerolle, Ph.D.
Address 0 0
Country 0 0
Phone 0 0
+61 7 334 67877
Fax 0 0
Email 0 0
l.mazerolle@uq.edu.au
Contact person for scientific queries

Summary results
For IPD and results data, please see https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04281966