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.
Top Related