1. 1 23
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal
ISSN 0738-0151
Child Adolesc Soc Work J
DOI 10.1007/s10560-016-0458-0
Evaluation of Safer, Smarter Kids: Child
Sexual Abuse Prevention Curriculum for
Kindergartners
Donna M. Brown

2. 1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

3. Evaluation of Safer, Smarter Kids: Child Sexual Abuse Prevention
Curriculum for Kindergartners
Donna M. Brown1
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract This study assessed the effectiveness of the
Safer, Smarter Kids kindergarten sexual abuse prevention
curriculum in meeting its educational objectives of
increasing children’s knowledge of safety risks and self-
protection strategies. The study utilized a two-phase non-
probability convenience sample of public school kinder-
garten students. The sample consisted of 1169 students in
four school districts in Florida. Using an alpha level of .05,
a paired-samples t test was calculated to compare the mean
pretest scores to the mean posttest scores of the youth
participants. The mean difference was significantly greater
than zero (p-value B.001). The measurement instrument
used to assess student gains functioned well in terms of
reliability (a = .82). The effect size was large with a
Cohen’s d effect size of 1.09. The results indicated that
completion of the Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum was
followed by a significant increase in students’ knowledge
of key prevention concepts with a 77 % increase in scores
post intervention.
Keywords Evaluation Á Child sexual abuse Á Prevention Á
Curriculum Á Kindergarten
In 2011, the Florida legislature passed the ‘‘Walk in Their
Shoes Act,’’ which included funding for Lauren’s Kids, a
Florida non-profit foundation for the prevention of child
sexual abuse, for the purpose of educating children about
abuse through a voluntary in-school curriculum. Lauren’s
Kids developed the Safer, Smarter Kids child sexual abuse
prevention curriculum for kindergartners. Because children
are at high risk for sexual abuse around the age of 4
(Snyder, 2000), it was felt that children in kindergarten
needed a sexual abuse prevention curriculum to augment
the Monique Burr Foundation interpersonal violence pre-
vention curriculum taught in many elementary schools,
grades 1 through 5. Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum
developers included Lauren Book, M.S. Ed., Tara Zuck-
erman, Psy.D., and a multidisciplinary team of educators
and developmental psychologists; the goal was to teach
children critical personal safety information in a develop-
mentally and age appropriate way. In 2011, 11,186 cur-
riculum kits were distributed among Florida’s 2095
elementary schools. Implementation of the curriculum was
reported in approximately 17 % (n = 354) of elementary
schools.
The Safer, Smarter Kids instructional design is based on
best practice in the field of early childhood education. The
best programs are a mix of information and skills-based
learning, are offered repeatedly and incorporate parental
involvement and home-based lesson reinforcement
(Kenny, 2009; Kopp & Miltenberger, 2009; Smothers &
Smothers, 2011). The Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum
operates on the principles of observational, vicarious, and
participatory learning. Children are provided with didactic
learning on recognizing high-risk situations and practicing
self-protective behaviors. This learning is paired with
modeling videos, interactive activities, opportunities for
role-playing, and situational practice exercises. Hence,
numerous modes of instruction are utilized to allow for an
optimal learning experience, the lessons are repeated over a
period of 6 weeks, and parental involvement is encouraged
through lesson handouts with at-home activities designed
to reinforce in-class learning.
& Donna M. Brown
dbrown@fcasv.org
1
Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, 1820 E. Park Ave.,
Suite 100, Tallahassee, FL 32301, USA
123
Child Adolesc Soc Work J
DOI 10.1007/s10560-016-0458-0
Author's personal copy

4. Lauren’s Kids Foundation contracted with Florida
Council Against Sexual Violence to conduct a summative
evaluation of the Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum. School
district participation in the pilot project was voluntary.
Franklin, Miami-Dade, Okaloosa and Pasco counties
agreed to participate in the study. This study assessed the
effectiveness of the Safer, Smarter Kids kindergarten sex-
ual abuse prevention curriculum in meeting its educational
objectives of increasing children’s knowledge of safety
risks and self-protection strategies.
Background
Sexual abuse continues to threaten the safety and healthy
development of Florida’s children. Although knowing the
true extent of child sexual abuse is limited by low disclo-
sure and reporting rates, we do know that in 2013, the
Florida Abuse Hotline received 2373 reports of child sex-
ual abuse, comprising 4.9 % of total reports (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). In 2014,
the Children’s Advocacy Centers in Florida provided ser-
vices to 12,580 child victims of sexual abuse, which
accounts for 37 % of their total services (Impact of Chil-
dren’s Advocacy Centers, 2014). Because children are at
greatest risk of sexual abuse during their preschool and
elementary school years, prevention efforts are best intro-
duced in early childhood. Studies have indicated that sex-
ual abuse education programs are effective in teaching core
prevention concepts to preschoolers (Wurtele, 2009).
Being a child poses the greatest risk factor for sexual
victimization. A study based on law enforcement data
reported in the National Incident-Based Reporting System
found that 67 % of sexual offenses involved victims under
the age of 18. For victims under the age of 12, four-year-
olds were at greatest risk for sexual assault. Eighty-six
percent of reported sex offenses involved a female victim,
with risk for girls increasing with age; whereas, boys are at
greatest risk for sexual assault at age 4 and then risk
steadily declines (Snyder, 2000).
Children are at greatest risk of sexual assault in a home
environment. Approximately 70 % of all sexual assaults
against minors occurred in the victims’ homes, offenders’
homes or another residence. Offenders were male in 96 %
of the reported cases, although female offenders (12 %)
were most common in cases against children under age 6.
Family members were the offenders in 27 % of cases, but
for children under 6 the risk of sexual abuse by a family
member increased to 49 % (Snyder, 2000).
The recent decline in reported child sexual abuse has
been attributed, in part, to the national, state and local
campaigns for child abuse prevention, education and
awareness (Daro, 2010). As Finkelhor and Jones (2004)
note, ‘‘it is reasonable to think, given the scale of these
efforts, they have had some success in preventing or
intervening in sexual abuse’’ (p. 10). In particular,
numerous studies have found that school-based sexual
abuse prevention programs are effective in teaching chil-
dren the concepts of self-protection, and participants in
several studies displayed increased self-efficacy and
reduced self-blame (Finkelhor, 2009). Likewise, preven-
tion education increases child disclosure rates and report-
ing by school officials (Finkelhor, Ormond, Turner, &
Hamby, 2012).
In 2014, law enforcement, legal or criminal justice
agencies accounted for 18.1 % of the reports to the Florida
Abuse Hotline and education personnel comprised the
second largest group of reporters at 17.7 % (U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, 2016). Thus, training
teachers to identify the red flags of sexual abuse, to inter-
vene effectively, and to provide children with the knowl-
edge and skills necessary for self-protection and
assertiveness constitutes a critical component in child
protection and sexual abuse prevention.
Curriculum
The Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum was developed by
Lauren Book, M.Ed., and Tara Zuckerman, Psy.D., and
consists of six 30-min lessons. Each lesson focuses on a
critical child safety topic using video material, structured
learning and class exercises. The curriculum meets 22
Sunshine State Standards in the areas of social studies,
theatre, visual art, health education and reading/language
arts. It was specifically designed to help teachers meet
existing educational requirements while imparting critical
safety information.
Florida has 1948 elementary schools (Florida Office of
Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability,
2016). Principals in each of the state’s schools received
Safer, Smarter Kids ‘‘kits’’ to be distributed to every
kindergarten class. The kit contained everything needed to
implement the program: a hardcopy version of the cur-
riculum lessons plans, parent newsletters, class materials/
handouts, skill-based scenarios and homework for the
children to review the lesson’s safety topics with their
parents; a DVD introducing the learning objective for each
lesson; and a flash drive that contains an electronic version
of class materials, parent newsletters in English, Spanish
and Creole and the curriculum teacher’s guide.
The curriculum is available for free to all Florida public
and charter schools and is available to order online at the
Lauren’s Kids website (www.laurenskids.org). Curriculum
support is also provided to teachers on the Lauren’s Kids
website. Web-based assistance includes a sample
D. M. Brown
123
Author's personal copy

5. curriculum where teachers can view Lauren Book, Lau-
ren’s Kids founder and curriculum co-developer, teaching
lesson one of the curriculum and the ‘‘Teacher’s Corner’’
where teachers or those teaching the curriculum can track
progress for each classroom and provide curriculum feed-
back. Parents are also encouraged to participate in the
curriculum via the website’s ‘‘Parent Toolkit,’’ which
provides parents with information on child sexual abuse
and offers interactive exercises for parents and children to
discuss and share the six learning objectives: understanding
safety rules, introducing the concept of a stranger versus a
trusted grown-up ‘‘buddy,’’ listening to one’s inner guiding
voice, body boundaries, recognizing safe versus unsafe
secrets and knowing the difference between tattling and
reporting.
Of note, Florida has not passed legislation that mandates
public schools to provide comprehensive sexual abuse
prevention curricula to students. As of 2016, over 26 states
have passed such legislation, commonly referred to as
Erin’s Laws, and many more introduced bills in 2015
seeking to pass similar legislation (National Conference of
State Legislators, 2015), Florida, however, has maintained
that participation in the provision of sexual abuse preven-
tion curricula be a voluntary matter decided upon by dis-
trict school administrators.
Method
The pilot study employed a one-group pre-post design
(O-X-O) to evaluate student learning gains. The pre and
posttest were developed for the project and included five
questions that reflected key curriculum concepts: under-
standing the difference between a ‘‘safe’’ and ‘‘unsafe’’
secret, defining a stranger, identifying personal space,
distinguishing between tattling and reporting and under-
standing ‘‘safe’’ versus ‘‘unsafe’’ situations.
Participants
The study utilized a two-phase non-probability conve-
nience sample of public school kindergarten children.
Lauren’s Kids Foundation approached school districts that
were implementing the Monique Burr Foundation ‘‘Speak
Up, Be Safe’’ child abuse prevention program for 1st
through 5th grade to participate in the pilot project. Ten
school district administrators indicated interest in intro-
ducing Safer, Smarter Kids to the schools. The superin-
tendents in the ten districts were emailed a letter requesting
their participation in the Safer, Smarter Kids evaluation.
Six districts declined to participate. District administrators
and principals in the four participating school districts
recruited kindergarten teachers and/or school counselors
for the pilot evaluation. Teacher/Counselor participation
was voluntary. The final count included 4 classrooms in
Franklin, 41 classrooms in Miami-Dade (25 public and 16
Miami-Dade charter schools), 4 classrooms in Okaloosa
and 5 classrooms in Pasco. None of the participating dis-
tricts or classrooms dropped out during the course of the
study.
Procedure
Approval for the research was granted by Western Insti-
tutional Review Board. Teachers and school counselors
who were interested in participating in the pilot project
were invited to attend a training webinar conducted by the
Florida Council Against Sexual Violence. The training
included an introduction to the project, review of the pro-
ject instrument and materials, instructions for conducting
the child interview, video of a model child interview using
the instrument, participant expectations and Q&A. The
webinar was attended by twenty-four teachers, school
counselors and school administrators who would be
supervising the pilot project. Subsequent to the webinar,
the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence offered
teachers/counselors a one-on-one review of the webinar
materials, link to the materials in the Safer, Smarter Kids
classroom hosted on the Florida Council Against Sexual
Violence website and ongoing support by telephone or
email.
The Miami-Dade school district provided two training
opportunities for kindergarten teachers, school counselors
and school social workers teaching the Safer, Smarter Kids
curriculum. During the training, break-out sessions were
held for the school personnel involved in the pilot project.
The break-out session covered the material provided on the
Florida Council Against Sexual Violence Safer, Smarter
Kids online classroom.
All participants in the pilot project were provided with
the ‘‘Teachers’ Testing Packet’’ (see Appendix 1) that
contained the pre and post-tests, testing materials,
instructions for their use and directions for participants.
Parental consent forms were sent home to the students’
parents. Only students whose parents did not opt-out of the
study were included in the pre/posttesting. Students whose
parents opted-out of the study attended the Safer, Smarter
Kids lessons but were not given the pretesting and
posttesting administered to the study’s students. During
testing, the opt-out students were engaged in alternative
activities.
The pre-post tests were designed to be read to the stu-
dent by the teacher/school counselor. Before the curricu-
lum was introduced, each student was met with
individually and asked the eleven evaluation questions. The
six lessons were delivered weekly over 6 weeks. Within
Evaluation of Safer, Smarter Kids: Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Curriculum for Kindergartners
123
Author's personal copy

6. 30 days of completing the curriculum the teacher/school
counselor met again with the students individually and
asked the eleven evaluation questions. The test adminis-
trator may or may not have been the same person who
presented the lessons to the students. Only students who
attended each of the six Safer, Smarter Kids lessons were
included in the post-testing.
In addition to the eleven questions, the pretest gathered
basic demographic information on the student: date of
birth, race and gender. The post-test collected data on
kindergarten experience (in years) for the individual
teaching the curriculum. The evaluation did not collect
identifying information. A simple coding system was used
to link each child’s pretest and posttest results. Participat-
ing schools returned hardcopies of the completed pre-
posttests in stamped envelopes or with postage paid for and
supplied by the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence.
Instrument
A pre-post instrument was developed for the evaluation of
the curriculum. It was developed in consultation with an
expert in the field of early childhood development, Dr.
Pamela C. Phelps. Dr. Phelps has been the director of an
innovative research-based preschool since 1971, and has
over 20 years of experience as a research consultant for the
Creative Center for Childhood Research and Training.
Content validity was addressed in a pilot testing of the
instrument with eight kindergarten children who had
completed the Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum. Based on
the responses of the children, changes were made to the
initial instrument to clarify meaning on two questions and
to include an additional question that assessed the ‘‘safe
versus unsafe’’ secrets learning objective. The final
instrument contained eleven items, with possible scores
ranging from 0 to 11.
Testing the learning gains of young children is chal-
lenging. Preschoolers are highly influenced by environ-
mental and personal factors (e.g., noise, tiredness or
hunger) and are inexperienced test-takers with limited
capacity to generalize from one situation to another (Na-
tional Association of Early Childhood Specialists, 2000;
Scott-Little & Niemeyer, 2001). Pre-post designs offer the
advantage of assessing learners with pre- or limited literacy
skills and minimal test-taking experience. The use of direct
assessment allows for optimizing the timing and environ-
ment of the testing for increased consistency and reliability
(Brown, Scott-Little, Amwake, & Wynn, 2007; National
Education Goals Panel, 1998). Furthermore, pre-post
designs are most effective when evaluating structured
programs that promote uniformity of delivery and imple-
mentation (Miller & Almon, 2009). Although the Safer,
Smarter Kids curriculum allows for flexibility in delivery,
it offers a comprehensive classroom ready program that
provides consistent use of materials, content and delivery.
The instrument was designed to test five key curriculum
concepts: understanding safety rules, introducing the con-
cept of a stranger versus a trusted grown-up ‘‘buddy,’’ body
boundaries, recognizing safe versus unsafe secrets and
knowing the difference between tattling and reporting. The
assessment was conducted through the use of 11 close-
ended questions that were accompanied by a supporting
scenario or picture (see Appendix 2). The instrument
included an ‘‘I don’t know’’ or ‘‘unsure’’ option for each
question. The trained test administrator met individually
with each child prior to curriculum delivery and within
30 days post-delivery. The child’s oral response to each
question is recorded (check box format) on the instrument
by the administrator. The participating schools completed
pre and posttests for 1169 students. Only students that
attended all six curriculum lessons were included in the
study.
Results
Instrument
The student responses were recoded into dichotomous
variables (0 = wrong; 1 = right). Reliability analysis for
internal consistency of the multi-item instrument resulted
in an alpha coefficient (a) of .82 (see Table 1). An a = .82
falls within the range of ‘‘good’’ and exceeds the conven-
tional threshold for acceptability of a = .70 (Gliem &
Gliem, 2003). The alpha if deleted results indicate that
Table 1 Safer smart kids survey internal consistency
N Mean Variance SD
Statistics for scale 1166 6.84 8.82 2.97
Global a = .82
Alpha if item
deleted
Item 1: safe or an unsafe secret .83
Item 2: pick out all of the ‘‘strangers’’ .82
Item 3: bikini top (girl) .80
Item 4: bikini bottom front (girl) .79
Item 5: bikini bottom back (girl) .78
Item 6: mouth (girl) .80
Item 7: bathing trunks front (boy) .80
Item 8: bathing trunks back (boy) .79
Item 9: mouth (boy) .81
Item 10: tattling or reporting .82
Item 11: grown-up buddy .82
D. M. Brown
123
Author's personal copy

7. removing an item would not significantly improve the
global alpha so analysis was conducted on the full scale.
Sample Characteristics
Initial data analysis assessed the demographic characteris-
tics of the study sample (n = 1169). Student characteristics
included gender, males 53 % and females 47 %; race,
African American 5.0 %, Asian 1.1 %, Hispanic (any race)
72.9 %, white (non-Hispanic) 18.6 % and other/unknown
2.2 %; and age, ranging from 5.5 to 7.7 years/months with
a mean age of 6.2 years. Curriculum administrators’ years
of experience teaching kindergarten ranged from 0 to
27 years, with a mean of 4.6 years (see Table 2). Nearly
half of those presenting the curriculum (46.7 %) had no
direct teaching experience with kindergarteners. This result
is possibly explained by Miami-Dade’s use of school
counselors rather than teachers to present the curriculum.
By district, Miami-Dade students comprised 83 % of the
sample; Franklin 6.0 %, Pasco 5.6 % and Okaloosa 5.4 %.
The school districts that participated in the study were
very different from each other, both geographically and
demographically. Miami-Dade is the largest city in Florida
located in the southern tip of the state. With a population of
2,496,435, the racial/ethnic breakdown is white 15.4 %;
black 17.1 %; and Hispanic/Latino 65 %. Franklin is a
rural coastal county located in north central Florida. With a
population of 11,549, the racial/ethnic breakdown is white
79.6 %; black 13.6 %; and Hispanic/Latino 4.6 %. Pasco is
a large county located in the central western coast of
Florida. With a population of 464,697, the racial/ethnic
breakdown is white 80.1 %; black 4.1 %; and Hispanic/
Latino 11.7 %. Okaloosa is a small county located in the
western Panhandle. With a population of 180,822, the
racial/ethnic breakdown is white 77.1 %; black 9.0 %; and
Hispanic/Latino 6.8 %. Each county diverges significantly
from the State racial/ethnic breakdown of white 57.9 %;
black 15.2 %; and Hispanic/Latino 22.5 % (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010).
The number of students who were excluded from the
study because they did not attend all six sessions (attrition
rate) comprised 11 % (N = 128) of the initial sample. Stu-
dent characteristics of those excluded from the study inclu-
ded gender, males 53 % and females 47 %; race, African
American 4.7 %, Asian 3.9 %, Hispanic (any race) 76.6 %,
white (non-Hispanic) 12.5 % and other/unknown .8 %; and
age, ranging from 5.8 to 7.4 years/months with a mean age of
6.4 years. Excluded students by district were: Miami-Dade
95 %, Franklin 4 %, Pasco 0 % and Okaloosa 1 %.
Using an alpha level of .05, an independent samples
t test was calculated to compare the pretest scores between
the included and excluded cases. The mean difference
(M = .287, SD = .221, N = 1297) was statistically non-
significant, t (1295) = 1.295, p = .19, indicating no sig-
nificant differences in pretest mean scores between the
included and excluded cases (see Table 3).
Data Analysis
Using an alpha level of .05, a paired-samples t test was cal-
culated to compare the mean pretest scores to the mean
posttestscoresofthe youthparticipants and assessgainscores.
The mean difference (M = 2.98, SD = 2.82, N = 1169) was
significantly greater than zero, t (1168) = 36.17, two-tailed
p-value.001, 95 % confidence interval about mean gains of
2.82–3.15, providing evidence that the Safer, Smarter Kids
curriculum may be effective in producing statistically signif-
icant learning gains (see Table 4). The results indicated that
completion of the Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum was fol-
lowed by an increase in students’ knowledge of key preven-
tion concepts with a 77 % increase in scores post intervention.
Statistical significance does not guarantee practical
significance. Practical significance (i.e., magnitude of the
treatment effect) addresses questions such as ‘‘how effec-
tive is the Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum in transferring
content knowledge to students?’’ To answer this, effect size
was calculated using Cohen’s d, an indicator of the relative
strength of the 3.06 mean difference gain score. The
Cohen’s d value of 1.09 indicates a large effect size (Co-
hen, 1988), signifying significantly large learning gains for
students.
Table 2 Demographic data
Variables
Sample size 1169
Age (years/months) 6.2
Sex (% female) 53
Race/ethnicity (%)
African American 5.0
Asian 1.1
White (non-Hispanic) 18.6
Hispanic (all races) 72.9
Unknown 2.2
Experience teaching kindergarten (mean) 4.6
Table 3 Results for independent samples t test
N Mean SD t DF q
Prescore group 1 1169 3.86 2.40
Prescore group 2 128 3.57 2.10
Equal variances assumed 1.295 1295 .195
Evaluation of Safer, Smarter Kids: Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Curriculum for Kindergartners
123
Author's personal copy

8. Analysis of the interaction of child’s race and gender on
the variance in the mean difference scores indicates that
race had a statistically significant (p = .004) effect on the
scores, although the association was trivial (g2
= .02)
accounting for less than 2 % of the variability. Gender had
no statistically significant effect on mean difference scores
(p = .10).
Using an alpha level of .05, bivariate correlations were
conducted to evaluate the correlation between child’s age
and years/months kindergarten teaching experience on the
mean difference (gain) scores. The results indicated
teaching experience had no statistically significant associ-
ation with learning gains (p = .22). Likewise, the result for
children’s age and mean difference scores was not statis-
tically significant (p = .09).
Using an alpha of .05, paired sample t test for each
individual survey item resulted in statistically significant
mean differences (p-value .001). However, questions 6
and 9 relating to the identification of the ‘‘mouth’’ as a
private part were notable in the percent of incorrect
responses. Posttesting showed significant gains in correct
responses but were still well below the remaining items on
the survey (see Table 5).
Discussion
Completion of the Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum was
followed by a significant improvement in students’
knowledge of key prevention concepts by an average gain
of 2.82 points (on a scale of 0–11) in tested knowledge.
Participating in Safer, Smarter Kids provides children with
knowledge on key principles of personal safety. They are
given tools to recognize at-risk behavior such as leaving
the company of trusted adults and keeping ‘‘unsafe’’
secrets; in addition, they are taught to distinguish between
reporting and tattling in regard to unsafe conduct, which is
crucial to the goal of increasing the reporting of sexual
abuse. Teachers are provided with the sensitivity needed to
address the issue of sexual abuse and to respond appro-
priately when disclosures are made. Parents who involve
themselves in the Safer, Smarter Kids at-home activities
and website information have an opportunity to learn about
the risk of sexual abuse, address the issue in an age-ap-
propriate manner, and know the warning signs of possible
abuse.
The measurement instrument functioned well in terms of
reliability and was an appropriate tool for assessing student
learning gains. The result for the correlation between tea-
cher’s experience and test scores was not statistically sig-
nificant, but the result may have been due to poor word
choice for the question: ‘‘Teacher’s (or person who taught
curriculum) years of experience teaching kindergarten.’’ If
the question were revised to read: ‘‘Teacher’s (or person
who taught curriculum) years of experience working with
kindergarten students’’ it may reduce the 47 % entry of
‘‘0’’ because many school counselors, school health offi-
cers or school social workers will teach the curriculum but
have no experience teaching kindergarten. Including
‘‘mouth’’ as an identified private part needs to be consid-
ered. The students in this sample consistently failed to
identify the mouth as a private part. Options to consider
include dropping these items from the test, rethinking the
question or instructing teachers to emphasize the mouth as
a private part. It may be that the concept of the mouth as a
private part is too difficult for kindergarteners and, thus,
inappropriate for inclusion in the measurement tool.
Limitations
Several limitations need mention. Most important, the use
of a non-representative convenience sample precludes
generalization of the findings beyond the sample. Random
selection and a control group aim to reduce potential
threats to external and internal validity (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2002). Lacking these conditions, the findings
Table 4 Results for paired-
sample t test
N Mean SD t DF q d
Posttest score 1169 6.84 2.97
Pretest score 3.86 2.41
Prescore–postscore 36.17 1168 .000 1.09
Table 5 Item response rates (%)
N = 1169 Pretest
(% correct)
Posttest
(% correct)
Item 1: safe or an unsafe secret 43.1 73.8
Item 2: pick out all of the ‘‘strangers’’ 23.9 61.8
Item 3: bikini top (girl) 28.2 56.3
Item 4: bikini bottom front (girl) 53.2 74.1
Item 5: bikini bottom back (girl) 46.0 71.6
Item 6: mouth (girl) 1.9 27.3
Item 7: bathing trunks front (boy) 54.4 73.6
Item 8: bathing trunks back (boy) 46.0 70.4
Item 9: mouth (boy) 1.5 27.0
Item 10: tattling or reporting 43.0 64.6
Item 11: grown-up buddy 44.5 83.6
D. M. Brown
123
Author's personal copy

9. cannot be claimed to be a direct result of the curriculum.
Other factors, not addressed in the study, could have
influenced the results, such as lack of standardization in
teaching the curriculum, selection bias, experimenter
effects (unintentional influence experimenter has on per-
formance) or experimental arrangements (impact of the
testing environment on students).
Using a single measure limits the inferences that can be
made. For example, this study did not assess the impact of
external influences on learning gains, such a parental
involvement. The curriculum is designed to include child-
parent interaction of the teaching materials. The degree of
parental reinforcement of key teaching points may have
had a significant impact on the posttest score.
Recommendations
The results of the pilot evaluation of Safer, Smarter Kids
curriculum are promising. The research literature notes the
need for evaluations based on reliable measures (National
Association of Early Childhood Specialists, 2000). The
initial findings indicate the Safer, Smarter Kids survey used
to measure learning gains exceeds the threshold of
acceptability. Likewise, the study’s findings are consistent
with the literature demonstrating the significant learning
gains of children, even young children, who participate in
school-based victimization prevention programs (Wurtele,
2009). The curriculum model also reflects best practices in
prevention such as the inclusion of participatory activities,
role-play and skill rehearsal and parental involvement
(Kenny, 2009; Smothers & Smothers, 2011).
Given the positive findings on the initial evaluation, the
study should be replicated. Suggestions for future study
include the implementation of a randomized field experi-
ment using a pretest–posttest control group design. To
enhance generalizability, statewide cluster sampling could
be employed with multistage selection proceeding from
school districts, to schools, to kindergarten classes. The
addition of control groups would aid in addressing con-
cerns of external and internal validity. To assess the unique
contributions of multiple sources on the pre and posttest
scores, the study design could incorporate qualitative and
quantitative data collection from various sources, such as
parental input and teacher feedback (Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2003; Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991).
Focus groups could be employed to address issues
related to the measurement survey, such as its ease of use
in the classroom, cultural sensitivity, adding multiple items
for each content area without overburdening the student or
survey administrator, and gathering data from multiple
sources. The benefits of focus group involvement by
teachers, curriculum presenters and school administrators
include improved content validity for the measurement
tool, implementation improvement through community-
based expertise, and increased commitment by involved
partners. Regional training could be provided for curricu-
lum presenters that would demonstrate standardized
implementation to minimize a potential threat to external
validity. The overall benefits of the study include the
ability to enhance our knowledge of effective child sexual
abuse prevention programs. Evidence-based programs are
becoming a standard requirement for funders and drive
policy formation and future program development.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by Lauren’s Kids
Foundation awarded to Florida Council Against Sexual Violence.
Florida Council Against Sexual Violence wishes to thank the many
teachers and guidance counselors who dedicated considerable time
and effort to conducting the student pretesting and posttesting. The
enthusiasm demonstrated for the Safer, Smarter Kids curriculum and
the evaluation project is an expression of the teachers’ ongoing
commitment to providing students with the knowledge needed for
their safety and well-being. This study could not have been carried
out without their support.
Funding Lauren’s Kids subcontracted with the Florida Council
Against Sexual Violence (FCASV) to fund this study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest Author’s employer, FCASV, received a research
grant from Lauren’s Kids. Author, Donna Miriam Brown, declares
that she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in this study involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from the legal
guardians of all individual participants included in the study.
Appendix 1: Lauren’s Kids Sexual Abuse
Prevention Curriculum Safer, Smarter Kids
Teacher/School Counselor: Pre & Post Testing
Thank you for participating in the Lauren’s Kids curricu-
lum pilot project. The goal of this project to assess the
learning gains of students who have completed the Lau-
ren’s Kids Safer, Smarter Kids sexual abuse prevention
curriculum. The curriculum is designed for kindergarten
students. Your school was chosen for the pilot testing
project because it currently utilizes the Monique Burr
Foundation’s Speak Up Be Safe!TM
child abuse curriculum
for 1st through 5th grade students and/or your school
superintendent elected the district to be a pilot county.
Each test should take approximately three (3) minutes
per student to administer. Administer the tests to each
Evaluation of Safer, Smarter Kids: Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Curriculum for Kindergartners
123
Author's personal copy

10. student participating in the 6-week curriculum. You can
print the form and manually enter the data or enter the data
directly to the pdf, but remember to click ‘‘save as’’ for
each student’s form in order to maintain a blank fillable
form.
Pretest Directions:
1. School, County and Child Identifier
Enter the name of the school and county and child
identifier (code). Assign each student a number—begin
with number one (1) and then indicate the classroom with
teacher’s initials. For example, there are 5 students in John
Doe’s kindergarten class. You would assign the following
identifiers: 1-JD; 2-JD; 3-JD; 4-JD and 5 JD.
2. Child Demographics
Enter the student’s date of birth and then circle (if using
paper version) the child’s gender and race. Include the date
the pretest was given and the initials of the person
administering the test.
3. Question Guidelines
Follow the directions given on the test for each question.
Some basic guidelines for administering pre and posttests:
• Start each interview with the same introduction. For
example,
‘‘Hi ——— [child’ name]. I’m going to ask you a few
questions to help me understand more about kids and
safety. Okay? There is no right or wrong answer. It’s okay
to tell me if you’re not sure. I’d just like to know what you
think. Ready?’’
• Administer the test in the same or similar environment
for each child. Ideally the environment should be a
comfortable space that minimizes distractions.
• Ask each question in a simple and objective manner.
Don’t encourage ‘‘correct’’ responses or give verbal or
physical cues to guide the child’s answers, such as
saying ‘‘are you sure?’’ when the student gives an
undesirable response.
• Select ‘‘unsure’’ or ‘‘could not answer’’ if student’s
response is off topic.
• Key to success—administer the test to each student
with consistency and objectivity.
Posttest Directions:
Remember to do the following for each student post-
tested.
1. Enter the same identifier for each student in order to
link their pre and post-test responses.
2. Only posttest students who have attended all six (6) of
the curriculum lessons.
3. Administer the posttest within 30 days of the final
lesson (Lesson 6) of the curriculum
Question Guidelines
Follow the directions given on the test for each question.
The guidelines for administering the posttest are the same:
• Start each interview with the same introduction. For
example,
‘‘Hi ——— [child’ name]. I’m going to ask you a few
questions to help me understand more about kids and
safety. Okay? There is no right or wrong answer. It’s okay
to tell me if you’re not sure. I’d just like to know what you
think. Ready?’’
• Administer the test in the same or similar environment
for each child. Ideally the environment should be a
comfortable space that minimizes distractions.
• Ask each question in a simple and objective manner.
Don’t encourage ‘‘correct’’ responses or give verbal or
physical cues to guide the child’s answers, such as
saying ‘‘are you sure?’’ when the student gives an
undesirable response.
• Select ‘‘unsure’’ or ‘‘could not answer’’ if student’s
response is off topic.
• Key to success—administer the test to each student
with consistency and objectivity.
Submitting the pre and posttest data:
Please mail hard copies of the pre and posttests to the
Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, 1820 E. Park
Ave., Suite 100, Tallahassee, FL 32301—ATTN: Donna
Brown. For your convenience, Florida Council Against
Sexual Violence will provide you with self-addressed
manila envelopes. Pre and posttests must be mailed to
the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence no later
than May 21, 2012.
Appendix 2: Pretest and Posttest Questions
1. Read the following scenario: Jenny was at a friend’s
house watching cartoons. At dinner time the friend’s dad
told Jenny how nice she was and that he had some pennies
for her to put in her piggy bank, but first she had to promise
not to tell anyone. Not even her parents.
D. M. Brown
123
Author's personal copy

11. • Ask the student if they think this was a safe or an unsafe secret? Check the box that most
closely reflects the student’s response:
Safe secret
Unsafe secret
Not sure
2. Using the picture card of 4 adults, ask the student to pick out all of the “strangers” Check the
box that most closely reflects the student’s response:
Student selected a specific person
Student identified all of the people as strangers
Student could not answer
3. Using the picture cards of the front and back of a child wearing a swimsuit, ask the student to
point out the girl’s or boy’s “private parts.” Check the box(es) that most closely reflects the
student’s response:
Student was able to identify the following private parts:
Bikini top
Bikini bottom front
Bikini bottom back
Mouth
Bathing trunks front
Bathing trunks back
Mouth
Student unable to identify any private parts
Girl
Boy
4. Read the following scenario: “You are on the school playground. There is a rule that children
are not allowed to climb to the top of the monkey bars. A child sees two classmates climbing
up the monkey bars to see who can go the highest. The child finds your teacher and tells
them what your classmates are doing.” Ask the student if they think the child who told
teacher was (a) tattling or (b) reporting.
Reporting
Tattling
Not sure
5. Read the following story: “Samantha is at the park with her friends and her mom. A lady that
Samantha doesn’t know comes to her and asks her to help her find her lost puppy. The lady is
very upset. What should Samantha do?”
• Ask the student to select one from the following options. Check the box that most closely
reflects the student’s response:
Help the lady find her puppy
Go and tell her mom that the lady lost her puppy
Not sure what Samantha should do
Evaluation of Safer, Smarter Kids: Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Curriculum for Kindergartners
123
Author's personal copy

12. References
Brown, G., Scott-Little, C., Amwake, L., & Wynn, L. (2007). A
review of methods and instruments used in state and local school
readiness evaluations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Children’s Advocacy Center. (2014). Impact of children’s advocacy
centers on child abuse and neglect. Retrieved from http://www.
fncac.org/cac-impact-on-child-abuse.html.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Association.
Daro, D. (2010). Child abuse prevention: A job half done. Chicago:
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Finkelhor, D. (2009). The prevention of childhood sexual abuse. The
Future of Children, 19(2), 169–194.
Finkelhor, D., & Jones, L. M. (2004). Explanations for the decline in
child sexual abuse cases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrond, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2012). Child
and youth victimization know to police, school and medical
authorities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Account-
ability. (March 2016). Retrieved from http://www.oppaga.state.
fl.us/profiles/2002/.
Gliem, J., & Gliem, R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting and reporting
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In
2003 Midwest research to practice conference in adult, contin-
uing and community education (pp. 82–88). Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University.
Kenny, M. C. (2009). Child sexual abuse prevention: Psychoeduca-
tional groups for preschoolers and their parents. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 34(1), 24–42.
Kopp, B., & Miltenberger, R. G. (2009). Evaluating the acceptability
of four versions of a child sexual abuse prevention program.
Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 31, 192–202.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children
need to play in school. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Depart-
ments of Education. (2000). STILL unacceptable trends in
kindergarten entry and placement. Washington, DC: National
Association of Early Childhood Specialists.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015). Child sexual abuse
prevention: Erin’s law. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/
research/human-services/erins-law-and-child-sexual-abuse-pre
vention-laws.aspx#2015Legislation.
National Education Goals Panel. (1998). Principles and recommen-
dations for early childhood assessments. Washington, DC:
National Education Goals Panel.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). State-
funded pre-kindergarten: What the evidence shows. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Exploratory factor
analysis. Measurement, design and analysis:An integrated approach
(pp. 590–630). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scott-Little, C. (2001). Assessing kindergarten children: What school
systems need to know. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Shadish, W. C., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Smothers, M. K., & Smothers, B. D. (2011). A sexual assault primary
prevention model with diverse urban youth. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse, 20, 708–727.
Snyder, H. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to
law enforcement: Vctim, incident and offender characteristics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder. (2010). Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.
xhtml#.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children’s Bureau. (2015). Child maltreatment 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-
data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children’s Bureau. (2016). Child maltreatment 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-
data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
Wurtele, S. (2009). Prevention sexual abuse of children in the twenty-
first century: Preparing for challenges and opportunities. Journal
of Child Sexual Abuse, 18, 1–18.
D. M. Brown
123
Author's personal copy