An interventional study of Close to Home in Sexual Violence, Sexual Assault and Adolescent Behavior, sponsored by University of California, San Diego. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 14 Years to 24 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-20.
Sponsored by University of California, San Diego · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
Investigators propose to rigorously evaluate the Close to Home (C2H) model via a cluster-matched control trial across 18 diverse communities (9 C2H, 9 control) in California via collection and analyses of social network, school-based and social media data. Close to Home is a primary prevention community mobilization model implemented in 10 communities across California that engages community members across multiple sectors and social networks to strengthen community connections and shift social norms regarding sexual violence (SV), but has never been rigorously evaluated. C2H moves beyond criminal justice, lobbying, or school-based curricular approaches, taking a true community-level and community-led approach. This is a five-year project, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for 3 years with competitive awards for years 4 and 5, and is conducted in partnership with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and ValorUs (formerly CALCASA). The University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and CDPH partnership is uniquely poised to conduct the first rigorous evaluation of C2H in California at this time.
Investigators propose to rigorously evaluate the Close to Home (C2H) model via a cluster-matched control trial across 18 diverse communities (9 C2H, 9 control) in California via collection and analyses of social network, school-based and social media data. Analyses of these data will provide evidence at the individual, interpersonal and community levels of the effectiveness of this community mobilization approach to reduce sexual violence (SV) incidence. California is uniquely poised to conduct this research, given a) the multiple, diverse of communities implementing C2H; b) California Department of Public Health (CDPH)'s 10-year commitment to building capacity to support local implementation of this model, and c) CDPH's ongoing partnership on RPE evaluation with University of California San Diego's Center on Gender Equity and Health, a center with the highest levels of expertise in evaluation of SV prevention programs, and the science of social norms, social networks and social media. A Research Advisory Board will be engaged and inform and guide these efforts throughout the project period. Investigators will accomplish this highly innovative effort via the following aims:
AIM 1. Develop and implement a cluster-matched control design in partnership with the RAB, including collecting baseline social network, school-based and social media data across 14 diverse California communities.
Hypothesis 1.1: Analyses of baseline social network data will demonstrate pathways of influence regarding SV social norms and behaviors among male and female youth ages 14-24 years.
Hypothesis 1.2: Analyses of triangulated YouGov and Twitter data will yield a valid, feasible social media-based assessment of SV social norms at the community-level for evaluation of SV prevention efforts.
AIM 2: Evaluate effects of the C2H model on SV social norms and incidence, as well as patterns of diffusion of these effects, via longitudinal analyses of social network data.
Hypothesis 2.1: Social norms rejecting SV will increase, and 12-month incidence of SV will decrease at 24-month follow-up among C2H participants relative to those in control programs, and these effects will diffuse via paths of influence across social networks assessed via Aim 1.
AIM 3: Extend Aim 2 findings via analyses of multiple waves of school-based data and geocoded social media data to yield multiple tests of community-level effects of C2H on SV social norms and incidence.
Hypotheses 3.1: Analyses of data from the California Healthy Kids Survey (ages 14-19 yrs) and Twitter (>13 yrs) collected from C2H and control communities (coincident with baseline and 24-month follow-up social network data) will yield evidence of community-level effects of C2H on SV social norms and incidence consistent with individual and network-level effects observed via Aim 2 analyses.
305 studies on the registry are indexed under Adolescent Behavior; 47 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 953 is above the median of 172 across 256 interventional studies indexed under Adolescent Behavior.
Browse Adolescent Behavior studies →University of California, San Diego is the lead sponsor of 980 studies on the registry; 195 are open to participants now.
Of its 113 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 71 (63%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Sites receiving the intervention arm were determined prior to the initiation of the research. The rape crisis center in each community applied for funding from the California Department of Public Health to implement the Close to Home model in their community and they were accepted via a competitive application process. Close to Home (C2H) is a community mobilization model developed in Boston and adapted for California and is specifically designed to prevent SV by strengthening community social connections and engaging whole communities in dialogue and action to transform social norms.
Behavioral: Close to Home
The control program is the 4-H Youth Development Program, which is implemented across every county in California via the University of California Cooperative Extension. In 4-H programs, kids and teens complete hands-on projects in areas like health, science, agriculture and civic engagement in a positive environment where they receive guidance from adult mentors and are encouraged to take on proactive leadership roles. The model does not use community mobilization and does not address sexual violence. Control communities were selected based on propensity score matching using sociodemographic and community-level variables related to risk for sexual violence. The closest match was recruited first, and a next-best match was used if the first match declined participation.
Close to Home (C2H), a community mobilization model developed in Boston and adapted for California, is specifically designed to prevent SV by strengthening community social connections and engaging whole communities in dialogue and action to transform social norms. The C2H model guides communities through four phases: 1) Assess, 2) Talk, 3) Build, and 4) Act. C2H mobilizes diverse groups of people residing in a shared geography and linked by social and political ties to engage in joint actions for SV prevention
Virtual/Online Sexual Harassment - Digital Dating Abuse Scale
Two item measure sexual harassment victimization and six items measure perpetration online, over text, or through social media. Response options: yes, in the last 12 months; yes, prior to last 12 months; never. Items used are adapted from the Digital Dating Abuse Scale - Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., \& Ward, L. M. (2017). Gender matters: Experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of adolescence, 59, 79-89.
Time frame: 2 years
In-Person Sexual Harassment & Violence - Sexual Harassment & Violence Scale
One item measures in-person sexual harassment victimization and three items measure perpetration. Response options: yes, in the last 12 months; yes, prior to last 12 months; never. Items were adapted from Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M. L., \& Korchmaros, J. D. (2014). Sexual harassment among adolescents of different sexual orientations and gender identities. Child abuse \& neglect, 38(2), 280-295 and Miller, E., Jones, K. A., Ripper, L., Paglisotti, T., Mulbah, P., \& Abebe, K. Z. (2020). An athletic coach-delivered middle school gender violence prevention program: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA pediatrics, 174(3), 241-249.
Time frame: 2 years
Dating Violence Victimization- Coaching Boys into Men Modified Dating Violence Victimization/Perpetration Scale
Two items measure dating violence victimization. Response options: yes, in the last 12 months; yes, prior to last 12 months; never. Items were adapted from Miller, E., Jones, K. A., Ripper, L., Paglisotti, T., Mulbah, P., \& Abebe, K. Z. (2020). An athletic coach-delivered middle school gender violence prevention program: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA pediatrics, 174(3), 241-249.
Time frame: 2 years
Dating Violence Perpetration- Coaching Boys into Men Modified Dating Violence Victimization/Perpetration Scale
Four items measure perpetration. Response options: yes, in the last 12 months; yes, prior to last 12 months; never. Items were adapted from Miller, E., Jones, K. A., Ripper, L., Paglisotti, T., Mulbah, P., \& Abebe, K. Z. (2020). An athletic coach-delivered middle school gender violence prevention program: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA pediatrics, 174(3), 241-249.
Time frame: 2 years
Sexual Violence Victimization/Perpetration - Coaching Boys into Men Modified Perpetration Scale
One item measures in-person sexual violence victimization and twp items measure perpetration. Response options: yes, in the last 12 months; yes, prior to last 12 months; never. Items were adapted from Miller, E., Jones, K. A., Ripper, L., Paglisotti, T., Mulbah, P., \& Abebe, K. Z. (2020). An athletic coach-delivered middle school gender violence prevention program: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA pediatrics, 174(3), 241-249.
Time frame: 2 years
LGBTQ+ and Gender Minority Violence- Victimization Scale
Nine items measure specific forms of sexual violence and harassment victimization experienced by sexual and gender minority youth. Response options: yes, in the last 12 months; yes, prior to last 12 months; never. Items adapted from Peitzmeier SM, Wirtz AL, Humes E. et al. The transgender-specific intimate partner violence scale for research and practice: Validation in a sample of transgender women. Social Science \& Medicine. 2021. 291: 114495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114495 and Scheer J, Woulfe JM, Goodman LA. Psychometric validation of the identity abuse scale among LGBTQ individuals. Community Psychology. 2018.
Time frame: 2 years
Social Norms- Sexual Violence Social Norms Scale
Four item scale assessing injunctive social norms related to perceived acceptability of SV among peers developed for this study; not yet validated.
Time frame: 2 years
Social Norms- Shared Concern about Sexual and Dating Violence Scale
Three item measure of social norms related to expectations of people's actions around preventing sexual and dating violence in the community (descriptive norm). Response options: 6-point Likert scale; strongly disagree to strongly agree. Adapted from Lippman 2016. Development, Validation, and Performance of a Scale to Measure Community Mobilization. Soc Sci Med. 2016 May ; 157: 127-137. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.002
Time frame: 2 years
Social Cohesion Scale
Two item measure of perceived social cohesion in community. Response options: 6-point Likert scale; strongly disagree to strongly agree. Items adapted from Banyard, Edwards. 2019. "What would the neighbors do?" Measuring sexual and domestic violence prevention social norms among youth and adults https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcop.22201; Yes change: Banyard, Edwards, Rizzo 2020. Improving Social Norms and Actions to Prevent Sexual and Intimate Partner Violence: A Pilot Study of the Impact of Green Dot Community on Youth https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2632077020966571
Time frame: 2 years
Community Connectedness Scale
Four items assessing perceived connection to fellow youth in the intervention program. Response options: 6-point Likert scale; strongly disagree to strongly agree. Adapted from Lippman 2016. Development, Validation, and Performance of a Scale to Measure Community Mobilization. Soc Sci Med. 2016 May ; 157: 127-137. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.002
Time frame: 2 years
Sense of Belonging Scale
Two items measuring sense of belonging to the community. Response options: 6-point Likert scale; strongly disagree to strongly agree. Adapted from Fujiwara, T., \& Kawachi, I. (2008). Social capital and health: a study of adult twins in the US. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), 139-144.
Time frame: 2 years
Sense of Community Scale
Six item scale measuring sense of community connectedness. Response options: 6-point Likert scale; strongly disagree to strongly agree. Adapted from Peterson, N.A., Speer, P.W., \& Hughey, J. (2006). Measuring sense of community: A methodological interpretation of the factor structure debate. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 453-469.
Time frame: 2 years
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of California, San Diego →