Youth Impact

The Effect of Participation in a Youth Development Program on Academic Performance and Social Skills.

2

Research Questions

What are the effects of the program from the perspective of alumni?

Does participation in the YI program affect the academic performance of the participants?

Does participation in the YI program affect the social skills of the participants?

Are the youth engaged in social networks within the YI program?

3

Concepts – Academic Performance

Three dimensions of Academic Performance Youth achieves passing grades. Youth attends school regularly. Youth demonstrates the ability to

concentrate on and be prepared for academic subjects.

4

Concepts – Social Skills

Social Skills are defined as specific strategies used by an individual to perform social tasks effectively and thus be judged socially competent.

Social interaction skills which facilitate any positive social interaction: Starting and maintaining a conversation Complementing others Conflict resolution Listens when peers speak

5

Concepts – Social Skills Cont’d

Two Dimensions of Social Skills Peer relations

Any type of interaction and behavior amongst peers.

Adult- Child Relations Any type of interaction and behavior

amongst adults.

6

Concepts A child’s & adolescent’s social network usually

includes close family members, extended family members, and especially their friends.

Youth Impact’s social network includes the participants peer group in the program.

Position: can be positive or negative Central - in the center of the networkNeutral - not central, and not on the fringe of the networkFringe - on the outskirts of the network

7

Methods – Alumni in Sample

Identified 15 alumni, 6 were able to be contacted 6 Alumni

Male 6 Hispanic 5 African American 1 Full-time employment 5 Unemployed 1 GED/HS Diploma 6 Some College 3

8

Methods – Youth Impact Subjects in Sample

Purposive sampling was used for the purpose of the study

Subjects were selected from a sample who attended a Parent Night at Youth Impact in the Fall of 2005 additionally 110 core youth impact participants were asked to participate.

9

Methods – Control Group Subjects in Sample

Control Group Sample selected from the same 7

participating Ogden schools Youth selected from Free Lunch lists

and were considered “at risk” children Systematic Random Sample

10

Demographics- Youth

Youth Impact (n=39) Average age: 12.16 Most occurring age: 10 Gender: 47.4% male

52.6% female

Race:

38.9% Caucasian

50.0% Hispanic

11.1% other

Control Group (n=29) Average age: 11.9 Most occurring age: 10 Gender: 41.4% male

58.6% female

Race:

37.9% Caucasian

37.9% Hispanic

24.1% other

11

Demographics- Parents

Youth Impact (n=39) Average age: 37.1

Gender: 25.6% male

74.4% female

Race:

45.9% Caucasian 51.4% Hispanic2.7% Other

Control Group (n=29) Average age: 37.8

Gender: 24.1% male

75.9% female

Race:

55.2% Caucasian

31.0% Hispanic

13.8% Other

12

Demographics- Parents cont.Youth Impact (n=39) Education Level:

13.5% less than H.S. 45.9% HS Diploma/GED 29.7% Some college

8.1% Associates 2.7% Bachelors

Employment Status: 60.5% full-time

5.3% part-time 23.7% unemployed

Household Income: 55.3% less than $20,000

Control Group (n=29) Education Level:

17.2% less than H.S.24.1% H.S. Diploma/GED 34.5% some college 6.9% Associates3.4% Bachelors

Employment Status: 48.3% full-time

20.7% part-time 27.6% unemployed

Household Income: 60.7% less than $20,000

13

Demographics- Parents cont.

Youth Impact (n=39)

Marital Status: single 21.1%

married 47.4% separated 5.3% divorced 21.1%cohabiting 5.3%

Relationship to Child: biological/adopted 76.9%

step-parent 5.1%

legal guardian 17.9%

Control Group (n=29)

Marital Status:single 10.7%

married 64.3% separated 7.1%

divorced 10.7%cohabiting 7.1%

Relationship to Child: biological/adopted 77.8%

step-parent 3.7%

legal guardian 14.8%

14

Methods Focus Group Subjects

We Used Purposive Judgmental Sampling.

Kids were chosen one of two ways:

The kids that were already in our sample were asked to participate

“Grapevine” kids who heard about the focus groups and wanted to join. (Snowball Sampling)

15

Focus Group DemographicsFocus Group Participants (n = 13)

Grade 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Gender Male FemaleRace Hispanic Caucasian Mix Italian Hawaiian Unsure

Amount422221

103

433111

Attendance Average total length Average days per four day week Parents Present in Household Single parent Both parents OtherPrimary Language Spoken English Spanish English/Spanish UnknownAge Range Average

Amount2.25 years

3.96

571

10111

10-1612.5

16

Number of Subjects in Study

6 Alumni GPA & Attendance records were obtained

for 16 Youth Impact and 10 Control Group youths.

Work/Study Skills and Social Skills data were collected for 20 Youth Impact youths and 10 Control youths.

13 YI youth participated in focus groups. 39 YI youth in social network analysis.

17

Data Collection- Alumni

Face to face interviews.

Conducted at Youth Impact.

18

Data Collection- Secondary Data

Cross-sectional design Analyzing data for the current school

year (2005 – 2006) Transcripts and attendance records

were obtained. Missing Data – Reasons. Overall 16

YI participants and 9 Control Group participants.

19

Data Collection- Focus Groups

Three different groups were run with four or five participants in each group.

Questions were developed before the groups were run and focused on the participants grades and their impression as to whether or not grades were improving because of the program.

The groups were tape recorded and later transcribed. Then they were analyzed for common themes and answers.

20

Data Collection Methods – Teacher Surveys

5 teacher surveys were administered for each student in Junior High and High School

1 teacher survey was administered for each student in Elementary school (home room teacher)

21

Data Collection – Teacher Surveys

Youth Impact 100 were sent out 55 were returned Return rate: 55%

Control Group 56 were sent out 34 were returned Return rate: 60.7%

Overall Return Rate: 57%

22

Data Collection – Youth Surveys

Three separate surveys were constructed and administered. One survey was tailored to children in the 4th and

5th grade Another survey was tailored to adolescent’s in

middle school and high school between 6th and 12th grades

A third survey was tailored to the parents of the participants

Surveys were administered Fall 2005

23

Measurement- Alumni

Group collaborated to construct relevant and viable interview questions.

Sample interview questions.*How did you learn about Youth Impact?*What influenced you to participate in the program?*In what way, if any, do you think Youth Impact contributed to your educational advancement?*In what ways, if any, did Youth Impact influence you to be more involved in the community

24

Measurement- GPA

A, B, C, D, F – Calculated G.P.A. E, S, N, P were assigned values then calculated G.P.A.

25

Measurement- Attendance

Attendance is measured in two different ways based on age: Attendance for middle school, junior

high, and high school students is defined as missing four or more periods per day for any reason other than school activities.

For elementary students, attendance is defined as missing an entire day.

26

Measurements- Work/Study

9 questions were asked teachers Teachers rated students on Likert

Scales

1 = never (low and negative)

5 = always (high and positive)

27

Measurement- Work/Study

Factor analysis indicated 7 of the 9 questions clustered together as one component

Responses to the 7 questions were summed and averaged to create a mean

The 2 other questions did not cluster together so they remained separate

28

Measurement- Work Study

Concept Measurement- Questions asked

Overall Work/Study Skills

1. Comes prepared

2. Attentive

3. Organized

4. Follows instruction

5. Concentrates on assigned tasks

6. Works well independently

7. Seeks addt’l instruct when need

Focus 1. Easily drawn off task

Comprehends Academic Subjects

1. Comprehends academic subjects

29

Measurement – Social Skills

Peer relations 17 indicators

Helps peers Takes turns Does no threaten peers

Adult-Child relations 7 indicators

Cooperative and compliant Easy to discipline

Measured using Likert Scale

30

Measurement – Social Skills

Factor analysis indicated four components of Peer Relations:

Non-aggressive/non-threatening towards peersPeer oriented Cooperates with peersPositively engaged in peer network

Factor analysis indicated one component of Adult-child Relations

Teacher-child relations

31

Measurement – Social Skills

Participation in classroom discussion is a single indicator of social skills that did not cluster together with any other social skills measures.

Responses to the questions for each component were summed and averaged to create a mean score on each component of social skills.

32

Measurement – Position in the Social Network

Sociometric status

Question on child and adolescent survey: Name 3 peers of the same gender in the Youth

Impact Program who you like to spend time with the most and 3 peers of the same gender who you dislike spending time with at the program.

33

Alumni Results – Social/Emotional

We found that Youth Impact contributed to the learning of respect, communication skills, and the making of friends and long lasting relationships.

Youth Impact contributed to the involvement of the Alumni in community service projects.

34

“R.A.F.N”“Respect All Fear None!”

35

Alumni Results- Social/Emotional

We did not find that the Interviewed Alumni had any previous significant behavioral disciplinary problems.

What we did not find was a viable way for Youth Impact participants to communicate their suggestions or concerns to staff.

36

Alumni Results – Educational/Economic

Found that Youth Impact contributed to educational advancement through scholarships, assistance with book fees, internet access, study halls, letters of recommendation, and policy enforcement regarding attendance at school.

We did not find that the Alumni’s educational/career goals significantly changed due to attendance in the program. However, it did make it easier for them to achieve their goals.

37

“I had never thought about working with kids, but Youth Impact helped me

realize and opened my eyes to all the things I really could do.”

38

Results - G.P.A.

2.2726

3.0476

39

Focus Group Results - Grades Program made the youth realize the

importance of grades. - “I think grades are more important

since I came here” said a participant. - Privileges are lost if they get poor

grades. - Another participant said “if I don’t

get good grades I can’t come to Youth Impact”.

40

Focus Group Results - Grades

Program has a study hall to use and staff members who are willing to help, but many do not take advantage of this.

- One participant said “Yeah, I use study hall, but not to do my homework”.

41

Focus Group Results - Grades

Split opinion about whether or not the program has improved their grades.

- One participant said that the program “helps me be prepared” and another said “My grades usually stay the same”.

42

Focus Group Results - Grades

Program encourages attendance which inadvertently improves grades.

- One participant stated that Youth Impact “makes me want to go to school”.

43

Attendance Data Results

Mean Percentage of Days Present at School

School Attendance

Youth Impact Control Group

Mean Difference

Percent of Days Present at School 92.8% 92.7% 0.1%

School Attendance

Mean Percenta

ge

Percentage of days present at school 92.8%

44

Attendance Data Results

The differences in attendance between the Youth Impact participants and the control group were not statistically significant.

The mean percentage of days that the students are attending school differed only by 0.1, with the Youth Impact participants attending 92.8% of the time and the control group participants attending 92.7% of the time.

45

Focus Group Attendance Results

When asked if attending the Youth Impact Program makes them want to go to school, the majority of the participants responded similarly, indicating that Youth Impact did motivate them to go to school.

"I didn't go to school for like half the day, but I went for the last hour so I could come to Youth Impact." 

46

Focus Group Attendance Results

Most of the participants indicated that they thought attending school is very important.

"Like really important you don't want to drop out like my mom did.  Your life will turn out crappy and stuff like that. I'm trying not to take my Dad's path cause he dropped out in like twelfth grade." 

47

Focus Group Attendance Results

The students also expressed that the Youth Impact Staff members didn’t discuss school attendance with them very often.

“I think the only person that really encourages me is [staff member] out in Study Hall.” 

48

Focus Group Attendance Results There was a lot of variation in responses

when we asked the participants if they are ever late to class or if they ever skip their classes. Most of the participants said that they were late for their first classes of the day and the classes right after lunch, and those were generally the classes they skipped. "I skip first period and lunches." "Some of my classes are really boring so,

and I don't know anyone in those classes so I don't feel like going."

49

Work Study Results

Work/Study Skills Dimensions

Mean Score

General Classroom Work/Study Skills

3.46

Focus (stays on task) 2.97

Comprehension (of academic subjects)

3.6

50

Work Study Results

Mean Work/Study Skills Scores

Work/Study Skills Dimensions

Youth Impact

Control Group

Mean Difference

General Classroom Work/Study Skills

3.41 3.55 -.1395

Focus (stays on task)

2.88 3.16 -.28733

Comprehension (of academic subjects)

3.51 3.78 -.264

51

Social Skills Results

Social Skill Dimensions Mean Score

Peer relations

Non-aggressive/threatening towards peers 4.0645

Peer oriented 3.5173

Cooperates with peers 3.5654

Positively engaged in peer network 3.8610

Teacher-child relations 3.8485

Participates in classroom discussion 3.3850

52

* Significance at the 0.10 level

Social Skills Results Mean Social Skills Scores

Social skills dimensions Youth Impact

Control Group

Mean Difference

Peer Relations

Non-aggressive/threatening towards

peers

3.9163 4.4165 -.50016

Peer oriented 3.4302 3.6916 -.26138

Cooperates with peers 3.4604 3.7440 -.28365

Positively engaged in peer network 3.6835 4.2160 -.53250*

Teacher-child relations 3.7665 4.0126 -.24610

Participates in classroom discussion 3.3935 3.3680 -.02550

53

Youth Impact Social Network

See diagrams

Youth Impact participants are engaged in social networks at the program.

Girls’ network is more complex than the boys’ networks.

Most central youth are positively central, meaning they have more positive nominations than negative nominations.

54

Conclusions

YI facilitates stable long-lasting friendship networks

Program helps participants stay on the “straight and narrow” Alumni suggested that the program

helped them to achieve their goals

Analysis of attendance records shows that the program keeps kids in school

55

Conclusions

The program has little significant impact on the academic performance of the youth.

Youth Impact Participants have a statistically significant lower grade point average than the control group.

Focus Groups revealed that the staff does not emphasize grades.

Many of the participants indicated that they do not feel that their grades need to improve.

The Work/Study Skills of the YI kids are no better or worse than those of the control group.

56

Conclusions

The social skills of Youth Impact participants are no better or worse than the youth in the control group.

The analysis of social skills suggested that YI participants are less likely than control group youth to be positively engaged in social networks at school. This does not mean that the youth are not

positively engaged in social networks at YI.

57

Conclusions

In fact, the social network analysis shows that most participants in the sample are indeed engaged in social networks at the program.

Some youth are more central than others but most participants are connected to the larger network in some way.

58

Recommendations

Continue to facilitate social networks among the participants.

Continue to provide guidance and support in helping youth achieve their goals.

59

Recommendations

Create and implement a social skills program. To include lessons on skills like:

Following instructions Communication skills Taking no for an answer Etc.

Staff would learn about the program first so that they can model the social skills being taught to the youth in a way that is consistent with the way the youth are learning the skills.

By modeling the skills, the staff will reinforce the skills the youth are learning in the social skills program.

60

Recommendations

Why a social skills program?

Research suggests that better social skills are associated with: Fewer behavior problems. Better academic performance.

61

Recommendations

Use the social networks to your advantage when instituting change in the program.

For example, get your central youth to participate in the social skills program.