Intergenerational Partnerships in the Youth

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Purpose of the study

The study illustrates the utility of process evaluation methods for improving a new violence prevention program, Youth Empowerment Solutions for Peaceful Communities (YES) (Peace in the Hood, 2010). The program helps young people to plan their community projects.

Research questions

This study aims to deliver relevant illustrations that provide answers to the following questions:

how does a systematic process evaluation study improve program activities?
How does a process evaluation study guide program enhance youth empowerment?

What can the YES program draw from Empowerment and ecological theories on:

The multiple levels of the social context and organizations within which youth develop,
The variety of social and contextual factors that influence community change efforts;
The role that the physical environment plays in preventing or facilitating community violence?

Population/sample

Participants included youths and adults. In the first year, 66 youth (29seventh graders and 37 eighth graders) were recruited. In the second year, 14 new seventh graders and 49 new eighth-graders were recruited. Another 14 eighth graders remained in the program from year one. In both years, the students’ ages ranged from 12 to 15, and all reported being African American. In the first year, nine neighborhood advocates were recruited by the program staff at community meetings. In year two, three from year one were retained and seven new advocates were added. All advocates were African American. In both years, the youngest advocate was in her thirties and the oldest were in their seventies. After the first year, six out of ten neighborhood advocates participated in interviews. After the second year, nine of the eleven advocates completed interviews.

Methodology of study

The youths identified conditions in their community that contributed to youth violence and communicated their findings to peers and adults. The program provided adult supervision while promoting social norms, being supportive of nonviolence, and community involvement. Finally, it initiated community-level change by improving the physical environment of neighborhoods. The intervention included three components: youth empowerment, adult capacity building, and community development. Youth empowerment connected students with supportive adult staff and neighborhood advocates. Adult capacity building prepared neighborhood advocates to work with and engage youth in community change activities. Community development engaged participants in planning and implementing community change projects. Methods of evaluation process included: Youth Evaluation Questionnaire, Youth Focus Groups, and Interviews with Adult Neighborhood Advocates.

Data analysis

Various strategies used to analyze data included: Tabulation of frequencies and means for the youth questionnaire data, completion of a thematic analysis of written responses to the open-ended questions, and transcribing and coding of audiotapes of the neighborhood advocate interviews.

Results

Youth evaluation questionnaire

In the first year, the ratings for staff and advocates helping the youth to feel empowered and working hard to help youth be successful were observed to be similar. Respondents gave neutral ratings about whether adults imposed their will on the youths. Most comments on the open-ended questions were positive while a third of the comments indicated a need for improvement. When the same question was presented to neighborhood advocates, nearly two-thirds of the comments addressed needed improvements. In the second year, the youth gave higher average ratings of both the program staff and the neighborhood advocates in the areas of helping them feel empowered and to be successful. Little change was observed in the ratings of making the youth comply with imposed rules, though a greater percentage of positive responses on the open-ended question were received.

Focus groups with the youths

The youths appreciated those who helped them solve problems but explained they did not like bossy and strict adults, as some were intimidating. Eight respondents stated adults did not listen or were too critical of their ideas and also felt that some adults imposed very strict rules on them. In the second year, similar responses were received, though there was a decrease in the number of participants that stated adults were too critical of their ideas.

Interviews with neighborhood advocates

Adult interview respondents were generally positive about the program. Most felt that improved relationships between the youth and the adults opened doors for youth in the community. Several indicated that the youth were sometimes hard to work with because of personal problems, immaturity, and a lack of commitment. After the second program year, the neighborhood advocates were largely positive about the program. They however cited that ‘‘bad attitudes’’ of some of the youth and lack of parental support required attention.

Recommendations

After the first program year, the evaluation results obtained from the youths and the neighborhood advocates expressed a need for less of an age difference between adult volunteers and the youth participants and an increase in the youth’s control of the program to give them a sense of ownership. After the second-year program, two advocates recommended additional training for adults working with the youth since they felt the training could foster a greater understanding of the youths’ life circumstances.

Critique

First, not all of the youth who participated in the program took part in the process evaluation. This suggests that researchers may not have obtained a complete picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Second, though it is expected that the study may provide a useful model for future process evaluation studies, the specific findings are not likely to generalize to other contexts or populations.

Implications to the evaluation design project

The study provides a case example of how a process evaluation can be used for program improvement and subsequent evaluation of the changes implemented. It also demonstrates the integration of multiple methods to establish validating data for program development. The study will therefore act as a guide in the development of the evaluation design project. Evaluation findings also stimulate discussion and reflection among staff. Producing and discussing evaluation reports helps the program staff reflect on the bigger picture. The experience presents strategies vital for staff development and continuous learning, during goal accomplishments.

Evaluation variables: According to data by NEOCANDA, there were 2090 serious violent crimes per 100,000people within Woodland Hills as compared to the city of Cleveland which had 1,604 serious violent crimes per 100,000 people. To lower these crime rates youth engagement with a focus on culture is required.

Aim of the project: To lower the violent crime levels in the Woodland Hills community by promoting positive youth development through culturally influenced activities.

Proposed design: Use of Rites of Passage Program designed to help guide adolescents away from potential poor choices during teenage years and assist in the transition into adulthood.

Measures:

Lower the level of violent crimes performed by middle school and high school-aged youth.
Strengthen afterschool programming.
Provide a safe haven from violent situations.
Increase neighborhood safety in Woodland Hills at the community level, through culturally-based development and youth engagement activities by 2013.
Increase youth’s ability to understand and accept differences in the Woodland Hills community.
Provide opportunities for youth to successfully transition to adulthood.

Sources of data:

Academic

Cleveland Municipal School District
Local middle school and high school administrators and counselors
CWRU—Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences (MSASS)

Business/Local business

Media, Public TV, and radio outlets
Flyers and promotional materials for programming

Governmental

Cleveland Board of Education
Cleveland Municipal School District (CMSD)
Cleveland Police Department (CPD)
Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA)
Correctional facilities (particularly juvenile institutions)
Local councilmen, representatives, and congressmen

Community- and Faith-Based Organizations

Peace in the Hood/Coalition for a Better Life
Louis Stokes Consortium on Youth

Target Population:

Greater Cleveland community members
Woodland Hills community members
Middle school and high school students
Parents

Data collection:

Resources

Stakeholders
Funding from NGOs
Bank loans
Individual contributions
Funding dollars

Methods of data collection

Questionnaires
Personal interviews
Conduct surveys
Community forums
Nominal and Focus Groups

Data analysis: Charts, Tables. Evaluate the modes of occurrence.

Reporting: Scatter graphs, bar charts, histograms.

The evaluation plan shall be based on the Precede-Proceed model. Phase one to five comprises the precede description while phases six to nine entail the procedure description.

Phase 1: Social diagnosis

According to data by NEOCANDA, there were 2090 serious violent crimes per 100,000 people within Woodland Hills as compared to the city of Cleveland which had 1,604 serious violent crimes per 100,000 people. To lower these crime rates, youth engagement with a focus on culture is required. A study conducted in a Hartford school in 2003 claimed youths who underwent the rites of passage training outperformed their peers academically (Bernstein, 2010). Woodland Hills therefore could highly benefit from the implementation of this program to Increase neighborhood safety in Woodland Hills at the community level, through culturally-based development and youth engagement activities, by 2013 and lower the level of violent crimes performed by middle school and high school-aged youth. This is possible since the Community Guide identifies “violent and aggressive behavior in childhood” as the principal risk factor for youth violence (Hahn et al., 2007). The rites of passage program will, however, require the intervention of public health practitioners to ensure hygienic administration, hence subsequently eliminating the possibility of infections among the young teenagers being inducted into adulthood. Methods for this diagnosis will include; Surveys, Interviews, Focus groups, and Community Forums.

Phase 2: Epidemiological diagnosis

This involves the establishment of statistics to establish the incidences and occurrences of undesirable changes in environment and target population behavior that lead to the prevalence of infections associated with program implementation. Data will include; mortality, level of prevalence, and incidences.

Phase 3: Behavioral and environmental diagnosis

The target population involves among others young and mid-level high students whose behavior is unpredictable and unstable due to immaturity and parental neglect. This behavior must be closely analyzed and linked to the overall goals of the program to help the program planners understand what to prioritize when offering educational guidance to the target population. Environmental diagnosis is also carried out in this phase and linked to the health problems in question. Once the environmental factors are diagnosed, measures to address the situation are put in place to curb the prevalence of the problem.

Phase 4: Educational diagnosis

This diagnosis involves the determination of causes of behavior analyzed in phase two and the factors affecting the behavior modifications. The factors may include enablers, predisposing factors, and reinforcing factors. the planners then develop appropriate strategies to administer learning outcomes that will help address behaviors critical to the health issue.

Phase 5: Administrative and policy diagnosis

The program initiators should assess the organization and address issues that may affect the development of the program. Resources and budget allocations should be analyzed in this phase. Policy diagnosis involves comparisons of organizational goals and objectives with those of the program. Program initiators should ensure compatibility of administrative and program goals and objectives to facilitate successful implementation of the program.

Phase 6: Program implementation

The program is implemented following the strategies agreed upon by the facilitators, closely linking the goals and objectives of the program with those of the organization to ensure program effectiveness

Phase 7: Process evaluation

Process evaluation involves the assessment of the methodology used for program implementation. It should be based on the priorities of the program with the most significant being evaluated first.

Phase 8: Impact evaluation

Impact Evaluation entails the determination of program effectiveness and efficiency based upon available predisposing factors, reinforcing factors, and the enablers that affect program development.

Phase 9: Outcome evaluation

This involves the determination of the overall success of the project about the achievement of goals and objectives set and results attained (CDCP, 2009). The purpose of this evaluation, therefore, is to measure the success of the project implementation while aiming at gauging the project’s effectiveness to its main objective and the reasons for which it was implemented. The evaluation plan of the study program however has its main focus on process evaluation and outcome evaluation.

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation will be seeking to answer questions such as: Is the methodology used to implement the project realistic and attainable? The researchers should be able to measure the probability of the project’s success against the established framework. For instance, the Coalition Community Project was measured against the following approaches; World Health Organization (World Report on Violence and Health) a conceptual framework for violence prevention, a model also used by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to identify risk factors at various levels which contribute to violence. United Nations report, the violence prevention approach utilized by public health professionals, which seeks to modify risk factors at various levels for addressing youth violence in particular (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009) and Khalid Samad’s “Peace in the Hood” approach which used “cultural and social awareness to promote self-esteem” (NEOCANDO, 2009, p. 23). This information could be availed by organization managers, from websites, or individuals with access to such kind of information.

What challenges are to be encountered and how could they be approached to enhance project effectiveness? The program controllers need to understand and evaluate the problems that may hinder program effectiveness so that they can come up with the most appropriate method of program development. These problems could be social, behavioral, or environmental. The Coalition Community Project initiators chose the three theories of the trans-theoretical model and the social cognitive model as the basis for program development. This information could be acquired through observation of change of behavior of participants in question, organizations, and involved professionals. Methods for collecting the information include; Surveys, Interviews, Focus groups, and Community forums.

Has the program achieved the goals and objectives for which it was implemented? A study conducted by Miller et al. (1993) estimated $10 billion in potential health-related costs from physical injury to violent crimes. The major goal of the Coalition Community Project was to reduce the level of violent crimes performed by middle school and high school-aged youth, providing a safe haven from violent situations and increasing neighborhood safety in Woodland Hills at the community level, through culturally-based development and youth engagement activities, by 2013. The evaluation seeks to determine whether these goals have been accomplished. This information could be acquired from program planners, participants, and the target population. Method of data collection includes; Interviews, Focus groups, Observation by the evaluator, and Community forums.

Design

Comparisons groups are more effective since results could be measured against the ideal expectations of the program initiators. The Coalition Community Guide task designed a model which proposed that “school-based and other related violence prevention efforts influence the development of students’ social skills, attitudes towards violence, and environmental norms. These effects contribute to an overall decrease in violence and subsequent physical and psychological injury (Hahn et al., 2007). Data should be collected at a reasonable time. What is reasonable is determined by the duration the project is bound to take (Coalition Community Project was bound to take one year), the convenience of the stakeholders, and the type of information required. Process evaluation data shall be collected at the beginning of the program set up while outcome evaluation data will be collected towards the end of the program when actual outcomes are realized.

Data will be collected retrospectively since outcomes are already established at the beginning of the study and evaluation is a relative measure of actual outcomes against the predetermined outcomes. Since the ideal outcomes have been established and the methodology of study I available, the data required will entail the program development and recorded actual outcomes achieved at the end of the program. Focus Groups and Interview designs could be used for evaluation. However, a case-control design will be the most appropriate for the evaluation of this program since its purpose is to determine the actual outcome against the predicted outcome. Potential threats to both internal and external validity include; bias in selection, Bias in data recall, and the inability of the design to tell about the prevalence or incidence of violence.

Measures

Data needed for evaluation will be acquired from program stakeholders. The methods for data collection will involve conducting surveys on program development and personal interviews to get relevant information on the position of the program in achieving set objectives. Data required to answer evaluation questions will include; information on the position of the program in achieving goals, financial constraints and prospects during program implementation, methodology used to develop the program, and the level of commitment of individual stakeholders in achieving program goals. Alternative sources of data include acquiring desired information from; external planners, professional consultants involved in the program, and the target population. Instruments of data collection will include; observation schedules, interview schedules, questionnaires, and institution schedules. Anticipated challenges entail a lack of cooperation from stakeholders, withholding of information by the program initiators, and presentation of false or irrelevant data.

Process evaluation will be conducted in the first month of the program year since it is within this period that the Coalition Community Guide task formulates the program development procedure and disseminates information regarding the program to program participants. Outcome evaluation shall be carried out towards the end of the program year since the effectiveness and success of the program would be determined best when comparisons are made between actual outcome realized and ideal outcomes set.

Analysis

Qualitative analysis will be used for the evaluation process since there is a need to understand each of the participants individually (Coolican, 1999). Data collection methods include; observations, case studies, and interviews. Information collected will be interpreted using viable techniques in order to obtain valuable data. For each data collection method, the following techniques will be used: (a) Interviews; There are various skills that researchers need in order to obtain valuable data (Coolican, 1994). The researcher needs to fully understand the interviewee, develop effective listening skills and approach them with a non-judgmental attitude. (b) Observations; Data obtained from observational studies can only be interpreted through speculations of the purpose of behavior depicted by the participants. The evaluator, therefore, needs to be very keen in order to observe every change of behavior. (c) Case studies; the findings of the case studies shall be measured against more controlled conditions to avoid generalizations of the information from single individuals.

Dissemination of information

The best technique for presenting data is the use of a scatter graph since the study involves the evaluation of the relationship between the prevalence of violence, crime, and behavior displayed by young scholars (Barnister et al., 1994). A scale of crime and violence witnessed shall be on the horizontal axis and a scale of the amount of aggressive behavior noted in young scholars on the vertical axis. A dot for each participant indicating where they fall on the two dimensions is then indicated. If there is no relationship between the participants’ aggressive behavior, violence, and crime, then dots are distributed randomly within the scatter graph. If there is a positive relationship among the variables, then dots tend to move from the bottom left of the graph to the top right. If a negative relationship is indicated, then dots will tend to move from the top left of the scatter graph to the bottom right. Evaluation results will be presented to relevant stakeholders in form of published manuals or post mails at the end of the program year when all processes of program development and outcomes have been evaluated.

References

Banister, E., Burman, I., Parker, M. & Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). The social- ecological model: A framework for prevention. Web.

Coolican, H. (1999). Research methods and statistics in psychology (3rd Ed.). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowy, J., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M. & Dahlberg, L. (2007). Effectiveness of universal school-based programs to prevent violent and aggressive behavior: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33 (2S), S114–29.

Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A. & Rossman, S. B. (1993). Victim costs of violent crime and resulting injuries. Health Affairs, 12 (4), 186-197. Web.

NEOCANDO. (2009). Social and economic data: woodland hills (44104). Web.

Peace in the Hood. (2010). Effectiveness of universal school-based programs. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!