DC Youth Investment

Needs and Assets Assessment of Washington, DC Youth Executive Summary
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation December 2011
INTRODUCTION
In the past decade, there has been an increase in youth positive outcomes in Washington, DC; however they still lag behind youth nationally. This report is intended to provide valuable data for planning for youth services to continue to increase outcomes. The full report includes (1) a descriptive analysis of youth in DC; (2) a qualitative assessment of youth and stakeholders regarding their perceptions of the needs and challenges currently faced by youth; (3) a guide to the resources and services that are currently available in Washington, DC for youth. This assessment focuses on the goal that children and youth develop positive behaviors. It is intended to provide useful information to help community stakeholders deepen their knowledge and understanding of youthrelated issues, needs, assets, and community strategies in Washington, DC. The intended areas of focus for the needs assessment were demographics (including age, race, SES, household, ward, and housing), educational factors (including high school and college graduation rates, attendance and behavior problems in school, high school dropout rates), criminal justice (including bullying and violence issues, arrests, and homicides) and health and recreation (including STD, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, obesity, and mental health). The population includes all youth in DC, however specific subgroups including youth with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) population and homeless youth were not included as three other organizations are currently working on an in-depth analysis of these populations in DC. Once the results are available they will be provided in the full report. This study was sponsored by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (the Trust) and was conducted by the Trust and George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services (GWU SPHHS). GWU contributors for the descriptive analysis and resource scan include Amanda Asgeirsson, Christopher Burton, Kristina Beall, Ninma Idowu-Fearon, Christine Iverson, Nakita Kanu, Janice Llanos-Velazquez, Reena Mathew, Briana Nord, Chelsi Stevens, and Nicole Vij. GWU contributors for the qualitative analysis include Ghada Khan, Yasir Shah, and John Wedeles. Comments and questions are welcome and can be directed to Nisha Sachdev who oversaw the project, at nsachdev@cyitc.org. More information about the Trust can be found at www.cyitc.org.
DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation DC Youth Needs Assessment CYITC, December 2011
Descriptive Overview of DC Youth

Descriptive data that has already been collected plays an important part in the comprehensive needs assessment process. The role of data helps determine the current extent of the problems by establishing a baseline, where the city wants to be in the future, and provides information to set and track goals. For the purpose of the needs assessment, this descriptive analysis is organized in five main categories: (1) general demographics; (2) culture; (3) education; (4) health and recreation, (3) criminal justice; and (5) juvenile crime data. Although these categories are described in separate sections, it should be noted that they are all interrelated in the development of youth.
Demographics
According to the U.S. Census (2010), the total population of the District of Columbia (DC) was 601,723. This reflects about a five percent increase over the past decade, compared to an average national of about ten percent. The population is about evenly split between males (47.2%) and females (52.8%). A majority of the population of DC is African-American (50.7%), with the remaining White (38.5%), Asian (3.5%), American Indian/Alaska native (0.3%) and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.1%). Some people identify as more than one race, and just over 9.1%, of the population identifies as having Hispanic or Latino origin. About 21% of the population of DC is 19 years or younger (123,720) (See Table 1). The median age in DC is 33.8 years. The average family size in DC is 3.01 and the average household size is 2.11 (Census Bureau, 2011). About 57% of children in the city come from single-parent families and 26% live in poverty. Also, 41% of DC children live in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment (Annie Casey Foundation, 2010). Overall, Ward 8 has the largest percentage of children, at 30%, and Ward 2 has the smallest percentage of children, at 5.8%. Ward 1 has the highest rate of those who were born in a foreign country, at 25%. Ward 7 has the largest percentage of Black non-Hispanic people, at 96%; Ward 3 had the lowest percentage, at 5.6%. In Ward 3, 78% of the population is White non-Hispanic, whereas Ward 7 had the lowest percentage of White persons, at 1.4%. Ward 1 has the highest rate of Hispanics, at 21%, and Ward 8 has the lowest percentage of Hispanics, at 1.8%. Ward 7 has the lowest percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander, at 0.2%, and Ward 2 has a high rate of 10% for Asian/Pacific Islander. Ward 8 has the highest level of poverty, at 35%. Ward 3 has the lowest poverty level, at 6.9%. In Ward 8, almost half of the children lived in poverty (48%). This is compared to only 3.1% in Ward 3. (Neighborhood Info DC, 2010). The District of Columbia is split into eight Wards. Because demographics differ greatly between Wards, it is important to note that a where available, Ward-specific data will be provided to identify what the specific state and needs are. Table 2 gives a population and race breakdown for each Ward.
Table 1. Age Category by Sex in 2010

Age Category Total population Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years Source: U.S. Census, 2011. Number (%) Both sexes 601,723 (100) 32,613 (5.4) 26,147 (4.3) 25,041 (4.2) 39,919 (6.6) Male 284,222 (100) 16,533 (5.8) 13,198 (4.6) 12,641 (4.4) 18,951 (6.7) Female 317,501 (100) 16,080 (5.1) 12,949 (4.1) 12,400 (3.9) 20,968 (6.6)
Table 2. Population and Race by Ward in 2010

DC Total 601,723 Population Persons under 17% 18 years White non35% Hispanic Black non51% Hispanic Hispanic 9.1% Ward 1 76,197 12% 41% 33% 21% Ward 2 79,915 5.8% 67% 13% 9.5% 10% Ward 3 77,152 13% 78% 5.6% 7.5% 8.2% Ward 4 75,773 20% 20% 59% 19% 2% Ward 5 74,308 17% 15% 77% 6.3% 1.7% Ward 6 76,598 13% 47% 42% 4.8% 5% Ward 7 71,068 25% 1.4% 96% 2.3% 0.2% Ward 8 70,712 30% 3.3% 94% 1.8% 0.5%
Asian/Pacific Islander non4.2% 5% Hispanic Source: Neighborhood Info, 2011.
Ward 1 Ward 1 is the smallest and most densely populated Ward in DC. According to the Brookings Institution, 20009, a zip code within Ward 1, is one of the most diverse zip codes in the entire region (Jim Graham, 2010). The Ward is made up of a young population, with more than half of the residents between 5 and 34 years. Between 2005 and 2009, a quarter of the population in Ward 1 was foreign born. The poverty rate of Ward 1 residents is 22%, and has the highest percentage of residents below poverty of any Ward west of the Anacostia River (Jim Graham, 2010). In 2010, the average family income was $98,485. From 2005 to 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.2% however, 71% of the population 16 years and older was employed. About 19% of the population did not have a high school diploma. Ward 1 has the second highest percent of renters (71.6%) falling below Ward 8. Ward 2 A large portion of the population in Ward 2 consists of a nonfamily household (about 76%). Sixty one percent of those households consists of individuals that live alone, with 9.4% being 65 years or
older. Also, many of the residents in Ward 2 have never been married. A majority of the population enrolled in school in Ward 2 are college or graduate students (82.7%). The overall population is very well educated, with 44.5% holding a Graduate or Professional degree, 28.4% a Bachelors degree, and 2.7% an Associates degree (DC Office of Planning, 2010). From 2005 to 2009, the poverty rate in Ward 2 is 15% and the average family income was $190,692. The unemployment rate was 4.0%. Ward 3 Ward 3 is the most affluent Wards in the District and is composed of many community and family oriented neighborhoods. It includes nine public schools, nine recreation centers and a brand new aquatic center. (Mary Cheh, 2010). The poverty rate in Ward 3 from 2005 to 2009 was 6.9% and the unemployment rate was 3.4%. This Ward is also well-educated; with only 3.4% of the population not have a high school diploma. In addition, only 3.1% of the children in the Ward were in poverty and the average family income was $256,386. Ward 4 Ward 4 borders Maryland and has a diverse population. Although part of the Ward is characterized by affluent individuals, the rest shares negative indicators as Wards 7 and 8. In Ward 4, 19% of the population was foreign born between 2005 and 2009. In addition, about 10% of the population lived in poverty and the unemployment rate was 7.6%. The average family income was $116,668. In Ward 4, 17% of individuals did not have a high school diploma. Ward 5 Ward 5 houses nearly 72,000 residents, and one in five of those residents are children. Ward 5 is the home of many new development projects and is currently in the process of 35 projects, which cost approximately $4 billion. These projects include grocery stores, art sites, parking and residential units, high school renovations and senior housing. (Harry Thomas, 2010). The poverty rate from 2005 to 2009 was 19% and the unemployment rate was 13%. Over half (54%) of the population 16 years or older was employed and 19% of the population did not have a high school diploma. The average family income was $78,559. Ward 6 Ward 6 is the only Ward in DC to include portions of each of the four quadrants (NW, NE, SW, SE) of the city. The population is diverse and the neighborhood characteristics are equally diverse. The Ward covers parts of Downtown, Penn Quarter, Gallery Place, as well as Federal buildings, retail areas, museums, theaters, Federal buildings, and part of the southwest waterfront and Nationals Stadium (DC Office of Planning, 2010). The poverty rate from 2005 to 2009 was 18% and the unemployment rate was 8.4%. The average family income was $120,526. Ward 7 Ward 7 is known for its Civil War fort sites, as well as parks. The Fort Dupont Park is the largest city owned park in the District. Additionally, Ward 7 is characterized by houses, single family homes and
apartment buildings (DC Office of Planning, 2010). The poverty rate from 2005 to 2009 was 26% and the unemployment rate was 19%. About 20% of the population did not have a high school diploma and 40% of the children lived in poverty. The average family income was $54,677. Ward 8 Ward 8 is one of the poorest Wards in DC. It has the highest percentage of persons receiving SNAP funds, and a very high unemployment rate. The population has changed the most of any of the other Wards, as it increased by 1.3% from 2000 to 2005, higher than the 0.2% increase in DC overall. Ward 8 is home to historic Anacostia, as well as Congress Heights. The Bolling Air Force base, and Saint Elizabeths Hospital is also located in the Ward (DC Office of Planning, 2010). The poverty rate was 35% between 2005 and 2009 and the unemployment rate was 17%. The average family income was $44,076 and 48% of children were living in poverty.
Language
According to the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS), 107 different home languages were represented in their enrolled youth as if 2009. DCPS identified 7,445 (16.3%) of their students as being linguistically and culturally diverse (LCD). Within this population, a majority was Hispanic (70.4%) with the remaining identified as Black (12.9%), Asian (8.9%), White (6.7%) and 1% as other ethnicities. In the 2010 academic year, the top 10 languages represented in DCPS students were Spanish, Amharic (Ethiopia), Chinese, French, Vietnamese, Russian, Arabic, Creole English, Tagalog and Bengali (DCPS 2009). The highest linguistically and culturally diverse population is found in Ward 1 with 2,648 LCD students (35.6%). In the District as a whole, 14.2% of residents over the age of 5 speak a language other than English at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Of these LCD students, those that are not scored as English Proficient on the Districts ACCESS for ELLs te st are designated as English language learners (ELLs). In the 2009-2010 school year, 4,269 (57.3%) LCD students were designated as English language learners. This represents 9.3% of the entire DCPS population (DCPS 2009). Table 3 shows a breakdown of LCD and ELL students by Ward in 2009. Table 3. LCD and ELL Youth in DCPS by Ward in 2009
DC Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward 1 2 3 4 5 6 Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Youth in DCPS 2,648 35.6% 788 10.6% 1,103 14.8% 1,820 24.4% 263 3.5% 613 8.2% Ward 7 170 2.4% Ward 8 40 0.5%
Number of youth Percent of DCPS students Number of youth
7,445 16.3%
English Language Learners in DCPS 4,269 2,648 38.7% 788 11.1% 1,103 11.9% 1,820 27.8% 263 2.8% 613 4.5% 170 2.6% 40 0.5%
Percent of DCPS 9.3% students Source: DCPS, 2009.
Health
DC high school students experience worse health than that of the national average. Six main indicators of current alarm are (1) asthma; (2) obesity; (3) HIV/AIDS; (4) teenage pregnancy; (5) substance abuse; and (6) access to health care. Overall, DC youth, specifically those between 9th and 12th grade, have been found to have higher rates of each of the above indicators (Comey et al., 2009). Asthma In DC, asthma affects nearly 12% of children under age 18 (about 13,000 children), compared to a national rate of less than 9% (DCAsthma.org, 2011). According the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 26% of high school students were diagnosed with asthma; this is a six percent increase since 2005 (CDC, 2008). More Black youth in DC were found to be diagnosed with asthma in comparison to Hispanics and Whites. Reasons for this include more exposure to dust and second hand smoke. A recent RAND Health analysis reveals Ward-specific asthma in 2003 with Ward 5 are 14.9%, Ward 6 at 12.6%, Ward 7 at 17.9%, and Ward 8 at 12.1% (DCAsthma.org, 2011). DC children ages 1 to 17 years averaged more than 4,200 emergency room (ER) visits to DC hospitals for asthma per year between 2002 and 2006 (Impact DC, 2010). Obesity Excessive weight is likely to contribute to low self-esteem and poor mental health, which may affect an individuals performance. Lack of physical activity also contributes greatly to the incidence of obesity. This will further be discussed in the recreation section. Among youth ages 6 to 12 years in DC, 15% are overweight and 19% are obese. Furthermore, the overweight rate among children aged 10 to 17 years in the District is 35.4%, higher than the national average at 31.6% (Trust for Americas Health, 2010). Rates of obesity among public high school students were found to be more likely than the national average (18% in DC versus 13% nationally) (DC Childrens Fact Sheet DC, 2011). If the classification of overweight is added to this statistic, the percentage jumps to almost 36%, (CDC, 2008 & Garner et al., 2010). This could be explained by the fact that fewer children in Wards 1, 6, 7, and 8 were found to exercise regularly (ACF, 2010). Table 4 has a breakdown of obesity indicators by Ward. Table 4. Obesity Indicators in the District of Columbia by Ward.
Ward 1 Percent Overweight Percent Obese 39% 19% Ward 2 35% 13% Ward 3 31% 12% 37 Ward 4 39% 22% 32 Ward 5 38% 30% 30 Ward 6 30% 19% 35 Ward 7 33% 40% 24 Ward 8 30% 42% 32
Percent consuming at least 5 servings of 37 33 fruits and vegetables Source: DC Department of Health, 2010.
Mental Health Many youth in DC experience mental health problems or developmental delays. Mental health conditions have been found to contribute to 14% of inpatient hospital stays among those aged 5 to 17 years in DC (Chandra et al., 2010). About five percent of ER visits by older youth were for mental health illness. The percentage of children aged 12 to 17 years who have one or more emotional, behavioral or developmental condition such as ADD/ADHD, anxiety, depression or developmental delay was 16.9% among DC youth compared to 14.9% nationwide (ACF, 2010). The two main conditions that mentally affect the health of youth in DC are depression and suicide attempts. About 27% of DCs high school students (9th to 12th graders) were found to be depressed (CDC, 2008). However, it should be noted that this rate was not found to be statistically different from the national average. In terms of race, Hispanic youth were found to be more likely to be depressed (29%) than Black teens (27%). Suicide attempts have been found to be alarmingly high in the District when compared with the national average with 12% of high school students actually attempted suicide one or more times in 2007. The most suicide attempts were made by females (12.4%) and homeless youth (32%) (CDC, 2008). DC rates of attempted suicide rose from seven percent to 12% between 1999 and 2003, and have remained stable since then, as opposed to national rates which have decreased. Despite there being a high rate of suicide attempts, the actual rate of committed suicides is low. HIV/AIDS There is a crucial need to establish programs and interventions to target young people who cannot be reached through school-based HIV initiatives. In addition to school dropouts, young men who have sex with men (MSM), homeless youth and incarcerated youth tend to be overlooked when creating HIV initiatives for youth. The District has the highest rate of newly reported cases of AIDS in the country. HIV infection among District youth is mostly the result of unprotected sexual behavior. According to the HIV/AIDS Administration Strategic Information Bureau, there were 32 new cases of HIV/AIDS in the District among youth aged 13 to 19 in 2008 (ACF, 2010). This represents a decrease from the 34 new cases diagnosed in 2007. Approximately 60% of HIV cases among youth ages 13 and 19 years progressed to AIDS within a year of diagnosis. Furthermore, rates of Chlamydia and gonorrhea were nearly 3 times the national average. Wards 7 and 8 had the greatest number of sexually transmitted diseases. Teen Pregnancy Teenage pregnancy continues to be a problem in the District. Although the teenage pregnancy rate decreased in the District from 1997 to 2005, recent data indicates that since 2007, these rates are once again increasing. Mothers under age 20 accounted for 12.2% of births in the District. Ward differences are seen with regards to teenage pregnancy. Births to teenage mothers accounted for 19.6% of births in Ward 8 and 18.4% of births in Ward 7, but only 1.3% of births in Ward 3 (ACF, 2010). Between 1991 and 2008 there have been approximately 22,610 teen births in the District of Columbia, costing taxpayers a total of $1.1 billion over that period.
Substance Use and Abuse Substance abuse involves the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarette smoking. Smoking generally increases ones risk of developing respiratory diseases and heart problems as well. Consequences of substance abuse include criminal arrest, motor vehicle accidents, and death by overdose. In addition, health consequences as a result of substance use include AIDS, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Nearly 11% of District youth in grades 9 to 12 report currently smoking, compared to 20% nationally (Chandra et al., 2010). DC had the nations highest rate of alcohol dependence or abuse for those 26 or older (8.1%), but the lowest rate among persons ages 12 to 17 years (3.0%) (SAMHSA,2011). The same pattern exists for alcohol consumption whereby the DC rate is lower than the national level. Only 12% of DC 9th to 12th graders reported binge drinking and this rate have declined steadily. The prevalence of binge drinking was 12% among DC youth compared to 26% nationally. Cigarette, marijuana, and alcohol use have all been found to decline among high school students between 2003 and 2005. Access to Health Care Most children in DC have some type of health insurance. In 2007, the rate of uninsured children in DC was seven percent compared to the national rate of uninsured children (10%) (DC Childrens Health Fact Sheet, 2008). However, parents in DC report greater difficulty seeing a specialist compared to parents nationwide with children in Ward 7 found to have the greatest difficulty. District parents, teens and providers also noted difficulty accessing dental and mental health care. Among the insured children, the rate of office-based health care use was well below the national average. The insured youth population uses the ER more than 3 to 5 times per year, as their primary source of care (Chandra et al., 2010). One of the key factors found to limit access to care is the availability of appointments. The distribution of pediatric specialists is uneven throughout the District and is not correlated with childrens health needs. There is a lack of pediatric mental health specialists east of the Anacostia River. Limited availability of providers who speak languages other than English, limited amount of health education and limited health promotion in DC schools also serve as factors which limit access to health care.
Recreation and Extracurricular Activities

Recreation Centers Local parks and recreation departments are integral components to positive youth development efforts, which not only help to increase social attitudes and skills but also reduce problem behaviors. Participation in structured recreational activities helps promote youth autonomy, development of identity, promotes positive social relationships and conflict resolution and leads to enhanced academic success and health. Recreational programs and activities outside of school have been shown to contribute to reduced juvenile delinquency, improved educational performance, increase of positive behaviors, and decrease healthcare costs associated with obesity (Whitt et al., 2010).
The District of Columbia boasts a dynamic Parks and Recreation Department (DPR), which includes over 80 Recreation centers located in every Ward as illustrated in Figure 1. Regardless of location within DC, there is purportedly a recreation center no more than two miles from a given spot in the District (The District of Columbia, 2011). Access to recreation centers in the District is far less variable by Ward and Cluster than other indicators such as access to parks or grocery stores. The average resident in Ward 1 has the shortest distance to travel at 1,545 feet followed by the average resident in Ward 2 at 1,815 feet, [while] the average resident in Ward 3 has the farthest to travel to a recreation center at 2,338 feet (Urban Institute 2010). Recreation centers are intended to be safe zones for kids and families and include general recreation centers, fitness centers, senior service centers, environmental education centers and community gardens and beehive locations (The District of Columbia, 2011). Figure 1. DPR Sites by Ward
Ward 8 13% Ward 7 13%
Ward 1 8%
Ward 2 9% Ward 3 14%
Ward 1 Ward 2
Ward 3
Ward 4 Ward 5
Ward 6 13%
Ward 6 Ward 5 16% Ward 4 14%

Ward 7
Source: DC DPR, 2010. Physical Activity Despite these opportunities, as noted obesity remains a looming health threat for DC youth. The 2007 YRBSS data indicates that only about a third (30.2%) of students met the recommended levels of physical activity (60 minutes for 5 or more days a week) and about a quarter (23.5%) did not participate in at least 60 minutes of physical activity on any day (See Table 5) (CDC, 2008 & DC Department of Health, 2010). In both of these indicators, boys had higher percentages for activity level than girls by about nine percentage points. Boys were also about 20% more likely to play on a sports team in high school than girls. Also revealed was that over half of the students (55.2%) did not attend physical education classes in an average week and only 50% of students played on at least one community or school sports team during the past 12 months. Television watching is also a contributor to the sedentary lifestyle for DC youth as over half (52.5%) of students watched more than three hours of television a day (CDC, 2008 & Garner et al., 2010).
Research has shown that differences in obesity and activity rates are typically a function of race, socioeconomic status and gender and that patterns of physical activity developed during childhood tend to be maintained into adulthood (Vierling et al., 2007). Therefore minority youth from lowincome areas are more at risk for behaviors that negatively affect their health and wellbeing. Data on DC indicate that obesity rises with lowered socio-economic status and that Hispanics and nonHispanic Blacks are much more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic Whites (DC Department of Health, 2010). Interestingly, the 2007 YRBSS found that no significant racial disparities were found among perceptions of being overweight or obese in neither middle school students nor high school students. However, the survey found that among high school students, the percentage of Black youth (55.9%) who watched more than three hours of television a day was much higher than the percentage of Hispanic youth (39.1%). Alternatively, in middle school, fewer Hispanic students participate in sports teams than those affiliated as Mixed Race and in high school; fewer Hispanics achieved the recommended levels of physical activity (Office of the State Superintendent of Education, 2010). Table 5. Recreation Indicators in the District of Columbia by Ward
Ward 1 Percent getting recommended level of physical activity Average distance to a park 70% Ward 2 81.4% Ward 3 84.9% Ward 4 61.7% Ward 5 59.2% Ward 6 84.9% Ward 7 58.5% Ward 8 54.7%
132 m
135 m
165 m
157 m
206 m
127 m
170 m
254 m
Source: DC Department of Health, 2010. Extracurricular Activities In addition to government run facilities, youth in DC can also participate in recreational and sports activities through a number of other organizations located in every Ward of DC. Some programs cater to school or Ward specific youth while others are open to youth from any part of DC. Similarly, many programs operate out of one specific location while others rotate throughout various locations in the city. These opportunities include soccer, baseball, basketball, swimming, dance, boxing, tennis, hiking, dragon boat racing, sailing, running and more. A seemingly equal number of organizations cater to the recreational needs of younger kids from ten years old through seniors in high school. Some programs are fee based while others are offered for free or at reduced cost. DC Public Schools also offers an array of after-school programs for elementary through high school students. The programs provide three hours of daily care after school and also include a dinner provided at no cost (DCPS, 2011). Students can participate in credit recovery programs, sports, art classes, theater, college prep classes, leadership and other recreational options directly through DCPS. The program also partners with community-based organizations to provide additional opportunities for students in both school locations and outside locations that can also include religious or cultural programming as well as other recreational options (DCPS 2011). A 2004 report compiled by The Urban Institute found that 1,100 nonprofits in the DC Metropolitan area had a direct mission to serve children and youth (Twombly, 2004). These largely included social welfare groups,
youth development centers and education services. A current scan of the recreational programs accessible to DC youth ages 10 to 18 include the specific organizations with numerous programs for wide-ranging groups of DC youth. Figure 2 shows an initial result of the scan. Figure 2. Distribution of Youth Resources and Services throughout DC
Source: CYITC, 2011.
Education
Young people who do not complete high school are unlikely to develop the minimum skills and credentials necessary to meet the demands of todays complicated workplace or be as successful in society as a high school graduate. Furthermore, a high school diploma leads to higher income and occupational status. Studies have also found that young adults with low education and skill levels are more likely to live in poverty, receive government assistance longer, and become involved in crime. Enrollment In the 2007 academic year, over 60,000 students in DC were African American, comprising the majority of students in the DC public school system (DCPS) (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2007). In 2010, students from Ward 8 had the highest enrollment in DCPS, whereas Ward 2 had the lowest. However, Ward 1 had the highest enrollment of students in PCS, with Ward 2 having the lowest enrollment (See Figure 2). Figure 2: Enrollment in School by Ward
Source: Education Policy Dashboard, 2010. High School Graduation According to the Editorial Projects in the Education Research Center, about 49% of all students in DC graduate from high school with a regular diploma in four years. The dropout rate between 2006 and 2007 was 7.1%. The students who dropped out from the 2008 graduating class will cost DC almost $504 million in lost wages over their lifetimes (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). The high school attendance rate in the 2007 academic year was 83.1% and the attendance rate was 91.6% (The Washington Times, 2008). However, the truancy rate for the 2010 academic year was 20%, meaning that 20% of DCPS students were truant for 15 days or more (Cardoza, 2011). The total average freshman graduation rate (AFRG) for Washington, DC for the 2008 academic year was 62.4% (NCES, 2008). The AFRG is an estimate of the percentage of an entering freshman class graduating with a regular diploma in 4 years. (For 2007-2008 it equals the total number of regular diploma recipients in 2007-2008 divided by average membership of the eighth grade class in 20032004, the ninth grade class in 2004-2005 and the tenth grade class of 2005-2006). For the same academic year, Virginia had an AFGR of 78.1% and Marylands was 80.1%, significantly higher than the districts AFRG (NCES, 2008). Similar to the AFGR, the suburban area surrounding DC has a higher graduation rate than the district, (in 2004 DC had 63.9% and the surrounding areas graduation rate was 78.2%). The graduation rate has increased and in 2009 was about 72.3%. Math and Reading Proficiency In 2005, only 44% of eighth graders in the District were meeting state reading proficiency standards, and 40% of eighth graders met state math proficiency standards (NCES, 2005). In 2011, 52% of the
eighth graders in the District were below basic math achievement levels and 49% were below basic reading achievement levels for that same year (ACF, 2010). Ward 3 has the highest achievement of CAS proficiency for reading and math in DCPS, and Ward 8 has the lowest CAS proficiency for reading and math in DCPS and the second lowest of the DC Public Charter Schools. Ward 5 has the lowest CAS proficiency for Math in the DC Public Charter Schools (See Figure 3). Figure 4 shows a map of DCPS proficiency levels. Figure 3: DC CAS Reading and Math Proficiency by Ward
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
DCPS Reading PCS Reading DCPS Math PCS Math
Source: Education Policy Dashboard, 2010. Figure 4: DCPS Proficiency by School
Source: DCPS, 2009 and CYITC, 2011.
Youth Violence
In 2010, the District of Columbia saw a seven percent decline in overall crime compared to 2009. There were 131 homicides in 2010, which was a nine percent decrease from 2009 and the fewest since 1963 (DC Metropolitan Police Department, 2010). The number of juveniles detained increased in 2010. During the first half of 2011, there were 1,628 juvenile arrests in the District, which is less than half of the number of juvenile arrests made in 2010. If the incidence of juvenile arrests continues at the current rate 2011 could have the lowest number of juvenile arrests since before 2006. When comparing the juvenile arrest trends from 2009 and 2010 with the first half of 2011, in addition to the overall number of juvenile arrests decreasing, the downward trend in the frequency of juvenile arrests for disorderly conduct and possession of an open container of alcohol (POCA) seems to continue. Also, the number of juvenile arrests for prostitution and commercial vice is on the decline. The number of arrests for aggravated assaults is also less than in 2009 and 2010; however, the number of arrests related to non-aggressive assaults is on the rise. In the first half of 2011, 292 juveniles were arrested. The number of juvenile arrests related to thefts and stolen property is also on the rise. Table 6 lists the number of juveniles arrested for crimes that the MPD has identified as the top charges for the District of Columbia (MPD, 2010 and 2011). The District of Columbia is divided into 7 police districts and each district is divided into five to eight police service areas (PSAs). There are 46 PSAs in the District of Columbia. Police use the PSAs to track to the location of arrests and where those who are arrested live (MPD, 2010). Between January 1 and June 30, police district 1 and police district 7 had the most arrests, 357 and 360, respectively. These districts had nearly six times the number of arrests that occurred in police district 2. During the first half of 2011, there were 63 juvenile arrests in police district 2 (MPD, 2011). Knowing the home PSA of those being arrested is necessary in order to develop effective crime prevention programs. As stated above, District 1 had the second highest number of juvenile arrests. Most of those arrests occurred in PSA 107. Between January 1 and June 30, 187 juveniles were arrested for crimes they committed in PSA 107. However, it must be noted that only 28 of those arrested were residents of PSA 107. PSA 706 is home to 116 juveniles who were arrested; however, only 87 arrests were made in that PSA. In some PSAs, like PSA 702, the difference in home PSA and arrest location is much smaller. In the first half of 2011, 27 juveniles from PSA 702 were arrested and 25 juveniles were arrested for committing crimes in that PSA. Figure 5 depicts the relationship of youth arrests per capita according to the home PSA of juveniles committing crimes (MPD, 2011).
Table 6: DC Juvenile Arrests from 2009 to June 30, 2011

Top Arrest Charge Aggravated Assault Arson Burglary Disorderly Conduct/POCA Gambling Homicide/Manslaughter Larceny/Theft Liquor Laws Narcotic Drug Laws Offenses Against the Family and Children Other Assaults (Non-Aggressive) Other Felonies Other Misdemeanors Prostitution & Commercial Vice Rape/Sexual Abuse Release Violations/Fugitive Robbery/Carjacking Sex Offenses Stolen Property Theft from Auto Traffic Violations Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle Vending Violations Weapons 2009 176 6 61 202 0 11 167 1 340 1 549 326 1,013 13 27 117 353 24 19 14 136 309 4 165 2010 158 7 73 100 1 13 107 0 253 0 422 322 1,226 13 3 106 381 8 27 12 86 186 1 133 2011 (Jan. 1 to June 30) 58 1 21 29 3 5 63 1 126 5 347 105 453 3 3 78 158 0 20 3 1 79 0 61
Source: MPD, 2010 and 2011.
Figure 4: Juvenile Arrests from 2006 to 2010
Source: MPD, 2011 & CYITC, 2011 Bullying and School Violence School bullying and violence, and their associated short and long term effects, remains a problem in the District of Columbia. Students who are victims of bulling or violence often experience decreased academic achievement, including lower grade point averages (GPAs), standardized test scores, and school participation, and are more likely to skip or drop out of school. They are also more likely to retaliate through extremely violent measures (Stopbullying.gov, 2011). Research has shown that being bullied as a youth may cause psychological problems that persist into adulthood. For example, youth who are bullied have a higher risk of depression and anxiety and are more likely to have thoughts about suicide as adults. Additionally, they are more like to have health complaints as adults than those who are not victims of bullying or school violence (Stopbullying.gov, 2011). DC-specific YRBSS data is currently only available through 2007. Figure 6 depicts trends in the prevalence of behaviors that contribute to violence on school property among DC high school students. Significantly, in 2007, students were more likely to skip school because they felt unsafe on
school premises or getting to/from school than in 2005. They were also more likely to participate in one or more physical altercations on school property than in 2005. Anecdotal evidence also points to high rates of bullying in DCPS. A recent article published in The Examiner, highlighted survey results in which DCPS middle school students were asked to rate how often they are made fun of for their appearance or speech. Sixty percent of students surveyed responded often or sometimes to this question. At Ballou (Ward 8), the response rate to this question was especially high; 73% of students said they were teased sometimes or often for the way they looked or acted (Gartner et al., 2011). Students were also asked to rate how often fights occur at school; more than half of students who attend stand-alone middle schools said fights occurred often or sometimes. Respondents at Eliot Hine (Ward 6) and Shaw (Ward 1) Middle Schools selected these answers about 80% of the time, respectively. The survey also asked students how often their property was damaged or stolen by their peers. Eighty-five percent of students at Woodrow Wilson Senior High (Ward 3) reported damaged or stolen property at least sometimes (Gartner et al., 2011). DC is one of only two states/districts without anti-bullying laws on the books. Last year, the City Council considered strict anti-bullying legislation, but was unable to enact it. The Council has yet to act on related legislation this year (Gartner et al., 2011.) Figure 6: Trends in Behaviors that Contribute to School Violence from 1993 to 2007
Source: CDC, 2008.

An Exploration of DC Youth
Overview
Although the descriptive analysis and the assets scan provides valuable information on the current state and available services for DC youth, there was a crucial need to complement this information with a qualitative assessment for a more in-depth examination of perceptions of youth needs and challenges from the views of different stakeholders including youth themselves. A qualitative study was therefore conducted to gather information on local perceptions around the needs and challenges faced by youth particularly around accessing DCs services. It should be noted th at this is just an initial assessment and the full study is to be completed by January 2012. Exploring the why behind the numbers is just as important as collecting the data. Focus groups and interviews are processes for eliciting comments, opinions and perceptions about a particular product, idea or problem. In addition, involving youth in the needs assessment process gives the process credibility since the people who are affected by the problem are directly involved in the process of developing solutions. Young people can also provide a realistic picture of what is happening in a community. Target groups participating in this assessment include the following: youth, school administrators and teachers, parents, volunteers, medical professionals, prevention and treatment experts, and community based organization workers.
Methods
The needs assessment used a qualitative design consisting of focus groups with youth and stakeholder interviews. The study was designed to answer questions about: perceptions of youth, their needs and challenges, involvement in negative behaviors and recommended suggestions for improvement in existing service delivery. Questions were carefully designed to gain an in-depth understanding while allowing the youth and other stakeholders to feel comfortable. Sample questions for the youth focus group included: How do you spend your time outside of school, how do you feel about being a young person in Washington DC, what do you think are the biggest challenge that youth face in DC, why do you think young people engage in negative behaviors? Examples of the interview questions included: What are the perceptions of young peoples needs, how do you think we can reach difficult to reach youth in Washington DC, what youth programs are not available that you would like to see? This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at GWU SPHHS. A total of 33 youth, 4 parents, and 2 youth experts are included in these initial findings. The focus groups were held at various community centers and community based organizations that were accessible to youth and the interviews were conducted over the phone. All interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and later transcribed for analysis. To gain a demographically representative sample, youth were recruited from both genders, different age groups and many subgroups of the population including teenage parents, youth involved in gangs and the court system, foster youth, youth who have dropped out of high school, and participants in local youth-focused
programs. There are 32 more scheduled interviews with other stakeholders including youth workers, volunteers, business owners, funders, teachers/school administrators, and clinicians as well as 3 more focus groups scheduled to reach about 20 more youth. Once the initial data was transcribed, NVIVO version 8, a qualitative software, was used to code the transcribed data for emerging themes and concepts. The coded data was then reviewed to determine emerging concepts of youth and stakeholder perceptions of challenges, needs, negative behavior and future recommendations around youth specific services.
Results and Recommendations

The initial results of the needs assessment are summarized, however it should be noted that the full study is intended to be complete in January 2012. Overall, key themes were found. Youth Labels The label hard to reach youth may be limiting their acceptance and motivation to seeking help and guidance. In addition, strategies should include listening to the individuals needs or concerns including issues they are facing and helping them navigate the system to reintegrate into positive behaviors. These quotes are from hard to reach youth. We are not hard to reach. People are just not reaching us at where we are at. We want to be reached. If they gave different programs to fit the criteria to why you were locked up, services that help you specifically, maybe even invest in psychologists.
Developmentally Appropriate Outcomes Strategies and programs need to be aligned with the specific needs of youth and their current developmental state. Developmental outcomes should take into account where youth currently are developmentally, and set realistic goals based on where youth are starting from, not just where we want them to be. A common theme was the youth felt that there was a push for them to grow up too fast and they felt stressed. There is a lot of pressure, you are getting older and people expect more and to take control of your actions at too early of an age. I feel stressed and ignored because I feel as though ok people are asking too much from me at one time and they have like too high expectations for me and that stresses me out and makes me not focus and anything and then I feel ignored by certain people. Positive Support Youth expressed a desire to have more caring adults in their lives to help either guide them through life situations and choices or motivate them. They discussed the importance of parents and although almost all said their parents were supportive they said they had many friends whose parents didnt
care and this not only affected their friend but also them indirectly. Note: the men tors do not have to be part of an organized program but can be even a teacher. Guidance and someone there they can look up to that is on the right path. Support other than tutoring, someone they can talk to sometimes if they have a problem. You should not use your parents not being there as an excuse, but sometimes it is kind of hard to like some people they might have brothers and sisters when their parents aren't there but then when you don't even have your brothers and sisters support, it's pretty hard to finish up school and then if you have your own child trying to do that all by yourself. Cuz I know somebody they tried school, they tried the GED Program, they tried the schools that train you for just one certain career and it just never worked out because I guess they just didn't have the support. Belonging and Membership Youth are looking for acceptance and something to belong to even if they know it is in the wrong places. Youth explained the reason why they (or their peers) join engage in some negative/at-risk behaviors including substance use, gang activity, and teenage pregnancy. An overarching theme was that these youth are looking for support, love, acceptance, to fit in, and a reason to feel needed. Acknowledging that they are looking for these things in the wrong place was a common theme among youth. And I know some kids that's been in gangs because they don't have a family or their parents are in drugs and not taking care of them so they go see their gang members for love and appreciation and acceptance. I think the biggest challenge - especially going through foster care and living in different homes is love. When I mean love, it is someone that cares about you, someone that actually cares how your day is. When you feel neglected, you do things that are pointless, and when you feel loved you feel like there is a point, you feel like you want to do things in life for yourselves and them. That is why there are young mothers because they are looking for love in the wrong places. That is why you have young fathers because they are looking for love in the wrong places. When they join gangs - that is what being said - this it comes with love and brotherhood, which is not love - you just have a strength or skill they need.
Assistance with Connecting to Resources/Navigating the System Around the issue of dropping out of school, many youth who have dropped out actually want to return, however need assistance navigating the system. Some common themes as to why youth drop out and do not return to school include: they cannot navigate the system; they do not want to go back to the school they were at but cannot get their paperwork in order to enroll elsewhere; they do not have anyone to help them go back; GED programs are hard to attend every day when many youth have to work.
Discussion
Before implementing or developing programs that would encourage positive behavior among local Washington DC youth and facilitate a favorable transition into adulthood, it was imperative to explore the specific perceptions of not just youth but various stakeholders themselves to better understand the priorities within this population. Reflections of the descriptive analysis show there is an uneven distribution of youth services and resources throughout the community, there is no central repository for data related to DC youth, and community organizations geared toward youth are often highly localized and may not have the funding or staff capability to conduct outreach or publicity outside of their immediate service areas. Services and resources for youth are unevenly distributed across DC and, in general, there is a lack of legal and recreational services for youth. Many of the available programs are concentrated in Wards 1, 5, and 6. An examination of Wards 7 and 8 revealed that these Wards fare the worst on many of the indicators, including SES. Of all the DC Wards, these two are the poorest. Unfortunately, they are also home to the greatest percentage of children of any of the Wards in DC. Consequently, youth in Wards 7 and 8 bear a disproportionate burden of the disparities in health, education, recreation, culture and legal services. Additional targeted approaches are needed to effectively address these disparities. Lastly, providing students in the District the option to attend schools that are not within their school district could help disadvantaged students access better school programs. In a brief released by the Urban Institute, stated that public school choice programs in DC are successful; disadvantaged students (i.e., economically disadvantaged students and students of racial and ethnic minority groups) take advantage of the alternative public schooling options and are able to attend higher-performing schools than their neighborhood public schools, even with a prolonged commute. (zek, 2011). The qualitative assessment provided insightful information about the needs and challenges of local youth. The results build on the findings on past research from other cities and extend our understanding of the more specific needs and challenges faced by youth in the DC metropolitan area. Initial take-home lessons from this study is that youth often face the negative effects of peer pressure and due to a lack of institutional and emotional support they find themselves engaging in negative behaviors. A high demand for mentorship programs as well as youth-specific programs where they can interact with like-minded and encouraging peers, confirms that aggressive outreach to local youth will ensure that they begin making the positive decisions and choice towards a successful transition into adulthood.
MAPPING OF DATA
(Crime, School Proficiency, Crime, Teenage Pregnancy, Additional Data, Food Resources)
Juvenile Arrests per Capita

(January Arrests 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011) Juvenile Per Capita
401
4 401
607
201 201
607
4
16TH ST NW
402 402
607
203 202 202

607
403 403
607
203
607
NORTH CAPITOL ST
205 205
607
3
204 204
607
404
404
5
501 501
607
405405
607
301 301 302 302
502 502
607
11 304 304 303 304 303

607 607 607
607
5
607
305 305
505 505
503 60703
206 206 M ST NW
607
208 208
307 308 307 607

607
K 607 ST NW 607 9TH ST SW
504 504 101

H ST NE
607
601 601 601

607 607
2 207
607
E ST NW607
101
607
102 102 607
103 103 107 107

607 607
INDEPENDENCE607 AVE SE
207
104 104
105 106 106 105

607
EAST CAPITOL ST
602 602
607
603 603
607
604 604
607
607 701 701
605 605
607
703 703
606 606 702 702
8
% of youth arrested
0% to 1%
`
704 704 705 705
707 707 706 706 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
1% to 1.5% 1.5% to 2% 2 to 2.2% 2.2% to 3%
PSA Boundaries
This map was created for planning purposes from a variety of sources. It is neither a survey nor a legal document. Information provided by other agencies should be verified with them where appropriate.
Proficient Students in DCPS

(September 2009 June 2010) Proficiency for DCPS Schools
401
4 401
607
201 201
607
4
16TH ST NW
402 402
607
203 202 202

607
403 403
607
203
607
NORTH CAPITOL ST
205 205
607
3
204 204
607
404
404
5
501 501
607
405405
607
301 301 302 302
502 502
607
11 304 304 303 304 303

607 607 607
607
5
607
305 305
505 505
503 60703
206 206 M ST NW
607
208 208
307 308 307 607

607
504 504 101

H ST NE
607
601 601 601

607 607
2 207
607
E ST NW607
101
607
102 102 607
103 103 107 107

607 607
207
104 104
105 106 106 105

607
EAST CAPITOL ST
602 602
607
603 603
607
604 604
607
607 701 701 702 702 704 704
605 605
607
703 703
606 606
% of proficient students
80% and Above
8
705 705 707 707 706 706
60% to 79%
`
0 0.5
2 Miles
40% to 59% 20% to 39% Below 20%

* Average: 40% to 59%
PSA Boundaries
Teenage Pregnancy
(2007) Per Capita Juvenile Arrests
401
4 401
607
201 201
607
4
16TH ST NW
402 402
607
203 202 202

607
403 403
607
203
607
NORTH CAPITOL ST
205 205
607
3
204 204
607
404
404
5
501 501
607
405405
607
301 301 302 302
502 502
607
11 304304 303 304 303

607 607 607 607
607
5
607
305 305
505 505
503 60703
206 206 M ST NW
607
208 208
307 308 307 607

607
504 504 101

H ST NE
607
601 601 601

607 607
2 207
607
E ST NW607
101
607
102 102 607
103 103 107 107

607 607
207
104 104
105 106 106 105

607
EAST CAPITOL ST
602 602
607
603 603
607
604 604
607
607 701 701 702 702 704 704
605 605
607
703 703
606 606
8
% of Births to Teenage Mom
0% to 4%
`
705 705 707 707 706 706 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
5% to 9% 10% to 14% 15% to 19% 21% to 25%
PSA Boundaries
Map of Resources
(DCPS, DPL, DPR, and 2011 Trust-Funded CBOs)
Resource Map
401
4 401
607
201 201
607
4
16TH ST NW
402 402
607
203 202 202

607
403 403
607
203
607
NORTH CAPITOL ST
205 205
607
3
204 204
607
404
404
5
501 501
607
405405
607
301 301 302 302
502 502
607
1304 304 304 303 1

607 607 607 607
607
5
607
305 305
505 505
503 60703
206 206 M ST NW
607
208 208
307 308 307 607

607
504 504 101

H ST NE
607
601 601 601

607 607
2 207
607
E ST NW607
101
607
102 102 607
103 103 107 107

607 607
207
105 106 104 104 105
EAST CAPITOL ST
602 602
607
603 603
607
604 604
607
607 703 703 701 701 702 702 704 704 705 705
605 605
607
606 606
8
CBO DCPS
`
707 707 706 706 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
DPL DPR
PSA Boundaries
Additional Data to Consider

Population by Ward in 2010
PSA 703 704 601 702 707 701 705 706 604 602 603 201 403 504 402 502 605 607 202 404 103 606 302 308 405 205 401 503 304 106 501 104 102 107 301 101 203 204 105 206 307 303 305 306 207 Population under 18 years 2745 3330 1839 1821 934 2308 3466 5771 4515 4784 3123 3125 3986 3166 4277 2940 1429 1906 2262 3693 2450 1073 4026 1132 2302 3026 1281 1176 1817 1150 3309 1508 1874 1427 1255 1409 1013 2813 514 1192 1199 1150 789 787 234 % Population under 18 years 34 34 33 33 31 30 29 29 28 27 26 22 21 21 20 20 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 14 14 13 12 12 12 11 9.3 9 7.9 7.4 7.1 7 6.7 3.5 1.5 % Overweight Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Ward 8 39% 35% 31% 39% 38% 30% 33% 30%
Obesity
% Obese 19% 13% 12% 22% 30% 19% 40% 42% % Rec. Level of Physical Activity 70% 81% 85% 62% 59% 85% 59% 55% Avg. m to a Park 132 m 135 m 165 m 157 m 206 m 127 m 170 m 254 m
Source: DC Department of Health, 2010.
Source: Neighborhood Info, 2011.
Miles Neighborhood Market
0.5
Windows Cafe & Market DC Mini Market T & G Grocery Capitol Food Mart
Circle 7 North East Market A&S Grocery Menick's Market A-1 Grocery
Tony's Market
Dollar Plus G&G Grocery
Martha's Market Marbury Market MLK Grocery Penn Way
Dollar Plus Food Corner Market
K&H Grocery
OPID0020797
Elmira Grocery
Office of Planning ~ September 23, 2011

Government of the District of Columbia
Participating Stores Grocery Stores Food Deserts Food Deserts & High Poverty
Healthy Corner Stores Initiative
Descriptive Analysis and Environmental Scan of Community Resources for DC Youth

Amanda Asgeirsson1, Christopher Burton1, Kristina Beall1, Ninma Idowu-Fearon1, Christine Iverson1, Nakita Kanu1, Janice Llanos-Velazquez1, Reena Mathew1, Briana Nord1, Chelsi Stevens1, Nicole Vij1, Ellen London2, Nisha Sachdev2, Erica Toliver2 1The George Washington University Medical Center, 2DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation ABSTRACT
Background: The DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation (The Trust) sponsored a needs assessment and asset mapping of youth in the District of Columbia (DC). The Trust is the primary resource for developing partnerships that expand and improve services and opportunities for children and youth in the District of Columbia, especially during their time out of school. The partnerships include public schools, city agencies, and employers, including non-profit providers. The Trust provides grants, technical assistance, youth worker training, capacity building, learning opportunities, and policy support in the District. Objectives: This assessment is intended to provide useful information to help community stakeholders deepen their knowledge and understanding of youth related issues, needs, assets, and community strategies in Washington, DC. In addition, it will provide valuable data for summer and year planning for youth agencies, providers, and funders. Methods: A descriptive analysis using existing data was created to establish a baseline understanding of the demographics as well as health, recreation, crime, and education indicators, and issues of DC youth by Ward (where applicable). An environmental scan of existing community resources for DC youth was also conducted in the following five focus areas: criminal justice, health, education, recreation, and culture. Results: An extensive database of community organizations and government agencies that provide services and resources in the five focus areas to DC youth was created. By plotting their geographic locations, we were able to identify areas with disproportionately few resources. In addition, areas with elevated rates of youth violence and crime and negative health and education indicators were provided. The results were provided to the Trust and will be used as a starting point to identify areas that require additional in-depth focus. Conclusions: We found that Wards 7 and 8 were particularly devoid of youth services and resources. We also found disparities in crime rates and health status, as well as poverty, in these areas. These indicators demonstrate that expanding legal services and health and recreation programs in these Wards should be a priority. Keywords: District of Columbia, youth, community, programs, youth development, resources, needs assessment, descriptive analysis, environmental scan, youth services, adolescent health
INTRODUCTION
The District of Columbia is home to over 120,000 youth under the age of 19. Understanding their needs in order to promote good health and positive development is particularly important given that these youth make up more than one-fifth of the citys population. The city is divided into eight Wards with a diverse range of ethnic identities and varying socioeconomic statuses (SES). These divisions essentially create eight distinct communities in which DC youth live, work, and engage in activities. The types of and access to services for youth vary profoundly by Ward. Certain indicators, such as poverty, act as polarizing statistics. For example, Ward 3, which has a high SES, only has 3.1% of children living in poverty compared to low-SES Ward 8 in which 46% of children live in poverty. This division is recurrent for many other indicators such as math and reading proficiency scores, health outcomes and crime statistics. Research has shown that improved access to recreation, education, health, cultural, and legal services also correlates to improved indicators for health and wellbeing among youth. Without these resources, adolescents, particularly those raised in low-SES neighborhoods, are more likely to be victims of violence; use tobacco, alcohol, and other substances; become obese; and engage in risky sexual behavior. The group also conducted an environmental scan of current services and resources available to this population. The scan will allow CYITC to identify areas that lack certain categories of youth services and serve as reference for community organizations such as CYITC seeking to assess the types of services available to youth in DC by specific neighborhood.
RESULTS
The descriptive analysis was comprised of these five categories: general demographics, health, recreation, education, and criminal justice. The results by each category were: General demographics: Ward 8 has the largest percentage of children at 30%; Ward 2 has the smallest percentage of children, at 5.8%. Ward 7 has the largest percentage of Black non-Hispanic people, at 96%; Ward 3 had the lowest percentage, at 5.6%. Ward 3 has the largest percentage of White persons, with 78% of their population identifying as White. Ward 1 has the highest rate of Hispanics, comprising 21% of the population. Ward 8 has the highest level of poverty, at 35% and Ward 3 has the lowest poverty level, at 6.9%. Table 1 depicts the unemployment rate and percentage of the population living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) by Ward from 20052009. Health: Only 7% of the children in DC are currently uninsured, which is below the national average of 10%. Parents in DC report greater difficulty accessing specialists than the rest of the nation. Among DC youth, 16.9% of children aged 12-17 years had one or more emotional, behavioral or developmental conditions. In Wards 7 and 8 there is a lack of pediatric mental health specialists. As for chronic conditions, HIV/AIDS and obesity are among the most common. There were 32 new cases of HIV/AIDS in the District among youth ages 13 to 19 years in 2008. The obesity/overweight rates among children ages 10 to 17 years in the District is 35.4%. Teenage pregnancy and STD rates are also major issues in DC and disparities exist between Wards. Births to teenage mothers accounted for 19.6% of births in Ward 8, 18.4% of births in Ward 7, but only 1.3% of births in Ward 3. Lastly, rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea were nearly 3 times the national average. Wards 7 and 8 had the greatest number of STDs. Recreation: The average distance to travel to reach a recreational center in each Ward does not exceed 0.44 miles. Recreational programs in DC provide opportunities to participate in a variety of sports from soccer to sailing. Recreational programs and activities outside of school have been shown to contribute to reduced juvenile delinquency, improved educational performance, increase of positive behaviors, and decrease healthcare costs associated with obesity. This is a critical service for DC youth given that current rates of obesity among public high school students in DC (18%) are over 5 percentage points higher than the national average (13% ). Education: In 2010, students from Ward 8 had the highest enrollment in DCPS, whereas Ward 2 had the lowest enrollment of students in DCPS. Ward 1 has the highest enrollment of students in PCS, with Ward 2 having the lowest enrollment. The dropout rate in 2006-2007 was 7.1%. In 2009, the graduation rate in 2008-09 for the DCPS was under 72.3%, which has increased from the 66.2% in the 2005-06 academic year. Ward 3 has the highest achievement of CAS proficiency for reading and math in DCPS, and Ward 8 has the lowest CAS proficiency for reading and math in DCPS. Ward 5 has the lowest CAS proficiency for Math in the DC PCS. Figure 2 shows the location of the schools and proficiency levels. Criminal Justice: During the first half of 2011, there were 1,628 juvenile arrests in the District, less than half of juvenile arrests made in 2010. However, the number of offenses related to non-aggressive assaults, thefts, and stolen property are on the rise. Figure 3 shows the locations of juvenile arrests as well as the PSA in which the offending youth resides. The embedded table shows overall juvenile arrests by PSA and the PSA of residence as well as the difference between where the youth was arrested and the location of the crime. For DC youth, bullying in schools continues to be a problem. DC high schools students were more likely to have carried a weapon on school property, skipped school due to feeling unsafe, been threatened with a weapon, or been in a physical fight at school than their peers across the nation. DC is one of only two states/districts without anti-bullying laws. Environmental Scan: Educational programs in DC outnumbered services available in health, recreation, culture and legal services. Recreational programs and legal services were most lacking. Health and culture programs were more prominent than recreation and legal services, but would benefit from augmentation. Figure 1. Distribution of Youth Resources and Services throughout DC Figure 2. Percentage of DC Public School Students who Demonstrate Academic Proficiency by School
LESSONS LEARNED
The following are observations from conducting the descriptive analysis and environmental scan of services and resources available to DC youth: There is an uneven distribution of youth services and resources throughout the community. There is no central repository for data related to DC youth. Community organizations geared toward youth are often highly localized and may not have the funding or staff capability to conduct outreach or publicity outside of their immediate service areas. Based on those observations, we make the following recommendations: 1) Maintain a database of all available youth resources and services within the community 2) Assist community organizations indentifying and applying for funding opportunities that will enable them to better reach under-resourced areas of DC 3) Educate policymakers about the correlation between access to education, cultural and recreations opportunities, health and legal services, and improved health and development in youth 4) Engage in partnerships that promote the proliferation of youth services and resources in Wards that are lacking
CONCLUSIONS
Services and resources for youth are unevenly distributed across DC and, in general, there is a lack of legal and recreational services for youth. Many of the available programs are concentrated in Wards 1, 5, and 6. An examination of Wards 7 and 8 revealed that these Wards fare the worst on many of the indicators, including SES. Of all the DC Wards, these two are the poorest. Unfortunately, they are also home to the greatest percentage of children of any of the Wards in DC. Consequently, youth in Wards 7 and 8 bear a disproportionate burden of the disparities in health, education, recreation, culture and legal services. Additional targeted approaches are needed to effectively address these disparities
METHODS
To complete the descriptive analysis and environmental scan, the following types of sources were used: Internet searches DC government publications and data sources Query of personnel at DC-based non-profit organizations Third-party reports and publications A descriptive analysis of DC youth by Ward was created that examined existing data in four categories, including: demographics, education, health, and criminal justice. Major data sources included the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Youth Behavior Risk Surveillance System (YRBSS), DC police crime data, DC Public Schools, the US Department of Education , and the US Census Bureau. An environmental scan was conducted to identify services and resources for DC youth ages 10 to 18 years in five focus areas: (1) criminal justice and legal services, (2) health, (3) recreation, (4) culture, and (5) education. Once identified, services and resources in each of the five focus areas were entered into a master workbook and plotted on a map. The data collected for each entity included: Organization name and location, including Ward and Police Service Area (PSA) Point of contact and contact information Program site (if different from headquarters) Website Description of program and areas of primary focus Ages served Hours of operation Focus area
REFERENCES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5704a1.htm. Figure 3. Distribution of Juvenile Arrests by Police Service Area (PSA) Relative to PSA of Residence of the Offender District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. 2010 Annual Report. (2010) Retrieved from http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/publ ications/ar_2010_lowres.pdf (Accessed November 17, 2011.) Education Policy Dashboard (2010). Friends of Choice in Urban Schools (FOCUS). Retrieved from http://focusdc.org/education-policy-dashboard. (Accessed November 1, 2011.) Percentage of fourth and eighth grade students in reading and mathematics meeting state proficiency standards (2005). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/statemapping/2005 _naep_state_table.asp (Accessed November 1, 2011.) Sloane DC, Diamant AL, Lewis LB, Yancey AK, et al, and the REACH Coalition of the African American Building a Legacy of Health Project, Improving the Nutritional Resource Environment for Healthy Living Through Community-Based Participatory Research, Journal of General Internal Medicine. July 2003; 18(7): 56875
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Occasional Paper Series (ETA-2012)
An Evaluation of the District of Columbia Summer Youth Employment Program

Prepared by:
Nisha Sachdev, DrPh Public Health The George Washington University The DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
This project has been funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from DOL/ETA, under Contract Number DOLJ111A21738. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government.
*A paper prepared for the 2011 ETA Research Papers Program, which competitively awarded doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers funding to conduct original research and prepare scholarly papers on topics of interest to the public workforce investment system. There were fifteen awardees for this competition, which was conducted by Synergy Enterprises, Inc. (SEI) on ETAs behalf.
Executive Summary The District of Columbia (DC) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) is a six week program through the Department of Employment Services (DOES) designed to provide eligible youth with enriching summer work experiences through placements in communitybased, private, or government sectors. The program is open to youth who ages 14 to 21 years, who are DC residents and permitted to work in the United States. SYEP meets the needs of these youth range using a youth development framework promoting positive work experiences. This evaluation utilized quantitative and qualitative methods including surveys, focus groups, interview, and SYEP records to evaluate if the youth were provided learning opportunities, if youth and supervisors were satisfied with the program, and the effect of SYEP on short term outcomes of increasing employability skills and future goals towards employment as well as increasing positive attitudes towards avoidance of negative behaviors. In 2011, SYEP served 12,651 youth. There were about an equal number of males and females, with a majority in high school or below between the ages of 14 and 17 years. In addition, a majority of the participants (53 percent) came from Wards 7 and 8. It should also be noted that SYEP has a high retention rate, with 88 percent of the youth returning from the previous summer. In addition, a majority of the organization sites that youth were employed at were local non-profits and DC Government agencies. Overall the findings show that 95 percent of the youth felt that they were provided learning opportunities and 69 percent were satisfied with the program. Furthermore, 95 percent of supervisors were also satisfied with SYEP and have recognized the improvements that SYEP has made over the past years. With respect to youth outcomes, the program has shown limited short term outcomes. The qualititative findings revealed continued improvements can still be
implemented specifically around the application process and quality of programming. Recommendations are provided based on these findings including research, policy, and practice implications.
ii
Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study ....................................................................................................................... 2 Positive Youth Development Framework ................................................................................. 3 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 4 II. Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 5 Significance of Youth Employment Programs ......................................................................... 7 Career Exposure and Awareness .............................................................................................. 7 Financial and Social Benefits.................................................................................................... 8 Work Preparedness ................................................................................................................... 9 Role of Employers .................................................................................................................. 10 III. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 11 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 11 Study Population ..................................................................................................................... 12 Protection of Human Subjects ................................................................................................ 15 Data Sources and Collection Methods .................................................................................... 16 Description of Variables ......................................................................................................... 20 Data Analysis Procedures ....................................................................................................... 25 IV. Findings................................................................................................................................... 29 Descriptive Analysis (Youth and Supervisor Enrollment and Program Offerings) ............... 29 Post Program Youth Participant Survey ................................................................................. 36 Pre-Post Program Youth Participant Survey........................................................................... 37 Findings from the Focus Groups and Interviews .................................................................... 39 iii
V. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 51 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 51 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 53 Study Implications .................................................................................................................. 60 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 61 References ..................................................................................................................................... 63 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 71 Appendix A: Informed Consent Forms................................................................................... 72 Appendix B: Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey ................................ 75 Appendix C: DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey ........................ 90 Appendix D: DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey....................... 106 Appendix E: Focus Group Protocols .................................................................................... 115 Appendix F: Supervisor Interview Protocols ........................................................................ 120
iv
I.
Introduction
Overview In urban areas, effective out of school time (OST) programs provide youth a positive environment and opportunities which help decrease negative youth development outcomes. For example, it was found that youth who participate in at least one hour of OST activities per week are 49 percent less likely to use drugs and 37 percent less likely to become teen parents (National Recreation and Park Association, 2010). Furthermore, OST programs can provide youth with the necessary skills to increase their perceptions that they can succeed in the future and have control over their actions, and can increase their motivation and ability to learn in school and other settings. Specifically, youth employment programs play an encouraging role in youths lives by teaching youth leadership, interpersonal, and occupational skills; providing opportunities to explore careers; and serving as a catalyst for a positive youth development (Ross, 2009). Current studies show that participation in these programs can have lasting academic, vocational and life benefits including increased high school graduation rates, greater employability skills, decreased drug use, and reduced teenage pregnancy rates (Flannery, Hussey and Thomas, 2009). One such program is the District of Columbia (DC) Department of Employment Services (DOES) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP)1. The DC SYEP is a 6-week program that provides DC youth, ages 14 to 21 years, with meaningful professional experiences to increase employment related experiences and alleviate the potential for negative developmental outcomes. Through the DC SYEP, youth participants have structured and supervised opportunities to explore vocational interests, develop useful work habits and
Information on the DC SYEP can be found at: http://does.dc.gov/does/cwp/view,a,1232,q,537757.asp.
marketable skills, learn the value of earning money through gainful employment, and obtain educational enrichment. Purpose of Study Many older DC urban youth have limited exposure to career opportunities and other structured activities during the summer. In addition, although there are some existing programs that were developed to provide youth with these opportunities, there is a dearth of rigorous evaluations being performed to document both their short- and long-term effectiveness. Without sound evaluation, programs are unable to examine if and how their efforts are impacting their participants. Although the DC SYEP has been in existence since 1979, it has never been formally evaluated with regard to youth outcomes. Therefore, a rigorous evaluation is needed to assess the overall behavioral effectiveness of this program as well as build on the previous qualitative studies of the benefits of youth development programs. This study fills this gap by designing and implementing a formative (process) and summative (outcome) pilot evaluation to provide recommendations for the program and for longer term evaluation efforts. Process evaluation is intended to look at the delivery of a program by assessing the quality of an intervention, explain why certain results are achieved, and identify factors that facilitate program success (Linnan and Steckler, 2002). Outcome evaluation complements process evaluation by observing the participant outcomes of the program (Wholey, Hatry, and Newcomer, 2004). Specifically, with regards to this study, the process evaluation examines the extent to which the DC SYEP is reaching the intended population and providing quality programming with which the participants are satisfied. The outcome evaluation examines the short-term behavior changes in the youth participants.
Positive Youth Development Framework This evaluation follows a positive youth development (PYD) approach, focusing on the strengths of youth rather than their weaknesses. PYD recognizes that all youth can be successful if provided support, guidance, and opportunities that meet their needs (Clymer, Edwards, Ponce and Wyckoff, 2002). This approach also suggests that providing young people with opportunities and resources to help them achieve their full potential is the best way to prevent them from engaging in risky behaviors and increasing their engagement in positive behaviors. . The fundamental principle underlying PYD is that youth can successfully progress through adolescence by developing skills and abilities including social and interpersonal skills, basic academic skills, capacity to understand and plan for the future, ability to take responsibility, and obtaining knowledge of vocational skills and career interests (Clymer et al, 2002). There are many variations of the PYD approach but important constructs included in all are promoting a sense of physical and psychological safety in youth; providing appropriate structures, such as programs, resources, and opportunities; creating supportive relationships with caring adults; providing opportunities to have a sense of belonging; providing positive social norms; giving youth responsibilities and meaningful challenges; and providing opportunities for skill-building. Programs implementing the PYD approach use these elements to develop and implement programming. For example, programs may provide mentors or utilize staff to provide youth the opportunity to model positive behaviors. Or programs may establish a sense of belonging by establishing a cohort of their youth who participate with their peers on specific activities.
The DC government has developed a citywide strategy centered on the Academy of Educational Developments (AED) Advancing Youth Development (AYD) model2. As the local provider of this curriculum, the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC) provides training for DC agencies and providers, front line staff, supervisors and policy makers on implementing the AED AYD approach in youth programming they provide. Furthermore, DC agencies frequently use constructs of this model to guide programming. AEDs AYD model identifies opportunities and supports for youth that are necessary to achieve 12 outcomes that indicate healthy development in youth. The model further categorizes these outcomes in areas of identity (youth demonstrate a positive identity when they have a sense of personal well-being and a sense of connection and commitment to others) and ability (youth demonstrate ability when they gain knowledge, skills and attitudes that prepare them for adulthood). Specifically, SYEP works two of the 12 outcomes, mastery and future orientation3 and employability skills4. Accordingly, the development of the evaluation in this study is grounded in these core constructs. Research Questions This study addresses three main research questions that correspond to the DC SYEP conceptual framework and the purposes of the evaluation: Research Question 1: To what extent did supervisors5 at host work sites provide learning opportunities geared towards (1) employability skills and (2) mastery and future orientation?
2 3
http://www.cyitc.org/elements/file/Indicators%20OST%20providers.pdf Mastery and future refers to a perception that one is making it and will succeed in the future. 4 Employability skills refers to the ability and motivation to gain the functional and organizational skills necessary for employment, including an understanding of careers and options, and the steps necessary to reach goals. 5 Supervisors refer to the supervisors of the host sites at which the youth are employed.
Hypothesis 1.1: At the end of the six-week program, at least 65 percent6 of the youth participants will report via survey that they learned skills geared towards (1) employability and (2) mastery and future orientation. Research Question 2: To what extent are youth and supervisors very satisfied with their overall participation in the DC SYEP? Hypothesis 2.1: At the end of the six-week program, at least 65 percent of youth participants will be very satisfied with their overall participation in the program. Hypothesis 2.2: At the end of the six-week program, at least 65 percent of supervisors will be very satisfied with their overall participation in the program. Research Question 3: To what extent has participation in the DC SYEP had an impact on (1) employability skills and (2) mastery and future orientation as it relates to employability? Hypothesis 3.1: By the end of the six-week program, youth participants will display an increase in employability skills as measured by self-report in pre and post participation surveys. Hypothesis 3.2: By the end of the six-week program, youth participants will display an increase in mastery and future orientation as it relates to employability skills as measured by self-report in pre and post participation surveys. II. Literature Review The successful transition from youth to adulthood is not only critical to individual development but also the well-being of society. The societal consequences of a well-educated citizenry include increased productivity, lower crime rates, and increased community service. Unfortunately, many issues plaguing youth in the United Statesincluding poverty, sexual
Sixty-five percent was used as a cut off as previous research of summer youth employment programs have used this cut off.
health, substance abuse, low academic achievement, and crimehinder this successful transition In addition, in todays economy, making a successful transition into adulthood often requires not only finishing high school but also earning a post-secondary education or training credential and obtaining and maintaining a job (Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE), 2011). This is of specific importance to youth from urban areas where statistics show that nationally, African American and urban youth are predisposed to more negative health and social outcomes than their Asian-American and White counterparts due to poverty, educational inequalities, environmental threats, and access to health care (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). In 2009, about one in four African American youth was considered disconnected from education and work (Ross, 2011). Also, low-income African American youth are faced with limited resources and generally have the poorest record of student academic success (Thomas, 2000). These negative outcomes make it especially imperative to focus resources and opportunities in this population. Specifically in DC, in 2007, only 43 percent of DC youth graduated from high school within five years and only 29 percent of those students enrolled in post-secondary education within 18 months of graduation (Double the Numbers (DTN), 2006). Moreover, DC Public Schools (DCPS) students have the fourth highest dropout rate in the nation (DTN, 2006). Furthermore, 67 percent of DCs youth cannot find viable employment (Urban Alliance (UA), 2010; Annie Casey Foundation, 2011) while continuing in school working toward graduation. In fact, in 2003, 29 percent of DCs youth (ages 18 to 24 years) were not in school, not working, and had not attained a high school diploma (UA, 2010).
Significance of Youth Employment Programs Young people who work are more likely to graduate, less likely to be involved with crime, less likely to become teenage parents, and more likely to achieve greater lifetime earnings (Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, 2011). Furthermore, work experience benefits youth by providing them with opportunities that assist in the development of employability skills including social responsibility, communication, professionalism, and teamwork. In addition, work experiences provide career exploration, financial benefits, education, work preparedness, and future employment. Lastly, exposure to work during adolescence assists in the growth of adult identities through opportunities for increased responsibility, financial independence, and exposure to adult roles and expectations (HGSE, 2011). By providing career exposure and opportunities to youth, employers are able to provide these benefits to youth. In addition, employers also gain from the work experiences of youth and receive benefits such as increased productivity and opportunities to train future workers (Martinson, 2010). Career Exposure and Awareness Youth in low-income urban areas lack the information or the connections to help them determine and obtain jobs that match their interests (McClanahan, Sipe and Smith, 2004). At home, low-income parents often lack the knowledge and resources to provide this exposure to their children, as they may not have knowledge of higher education or diverse careers (Americas Promise, 2011). In addition, youth may not have opportunities to gain this exposure in schools. Although career guidance and counseling is a component of the traditional school system, it is often inadequate due to high ratios of students to counselors as well as the fact that many counselors are trained in the area of mental health and do not have the expertise or training to provide high quality career guidance (HGSE, 2011).
It is important for youth to not only gain awareness of careers and fields of study, but also to learn how to translate their personal interests and strengths to specific careers and educational options that match these interests and strengths. Without this, youth may have limited aspirations for careers and fields of study. The lack of adequate guidance often leads students to pursue courses in which they are not engaged, which may serve as a precursor for dropping out of high school. Providing a visible connection between a program of study and tangible opportunities in the work world reduces the likelihood of this (HGSE, 2011). This helps students prepare for future academic training as it relates to their future career goals. Employment programs can help inform youth about career and educational options and motivate them to see the connection between high school studies and work (Whalen, DeCoursey and Skyles, 2003). Financial and Social Benefits Youth with limited work experience also face limited earnings later in life, perpetuating the cycle of poverty (Ross, 2011). Employment and academic training during adolescence provides opportunities to assist individuals become self-sufficient adults. Youth employment programs have been found to provide long-term benefits such as higher annual earnings, greater likelihood of receiving fringe benefits, and higher status occupations (Jekielek, Cochran and Hair, 2002). This is important to note as urban youth are more susceptible to the consequences of economic fluctuations due to lack of employment themselves and of their parents. When the economy is doing well, usually their well-being improves also. However, when the economy falls, they experience more hardships than their White counterparts (Land, 2010). Employment programs can also have a benefit on health outcomes of youth. For example, low-income, teenaged males who cannot find work are more likely to become
connected with the law and females are more likely to become single mothers (HGSE, 2011). This might be due to the fact that employment programs have natural opportunities for mentorship as well as provide a structured opportunity afterschool. In addition, it has been found that youth who earn their own money access social services such as medical care (Bauermeister, Zimmerman, Gee, Caldwell and Zue, 2009). These benefits show the importance of employment programs. Work Preparedness It is vital to prepare youth for the workplace. Reducing the share of youth with low or no qualifications for the workplace is vital in addressing the challenges facing youth in America (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2009). Traditionally, adolescence is a period where youth are structured to engage in long-term academic preparation instead of activities that expose them to the adult world (Whalen et al, 2003). This causes youth to not be exposed to workplace norms, foundational skills, and to have unrealistic expectations about the work world. Employers believe that youth are not equipped with the adequate skills needed to succeed in todays workforce (HGSE, 2011). For example, according to a survey of several hundred employers, 80 percent rated professionalism and work ethic as the most important skills needed by entrants to succeed in todays workforce and that over 40 percent of new entrants with a high school diploma are poorly prepared in these skills (Casner-Lotto and Barrington, 2006). Furthermore, human resource executives interviewed emphasized the need for proper dress, strong interviewing and communication skills and an understanding of the job application process (Casner-Lotto et al, 2006).
Work experience helps youth develop these necessary employability skills. For example, working adolescents were found to describe themselves as possessing qualities such as being dependable, punctual, and responsible more often than nonworking adolescents (Greenberger and Steinberg, 1986). This is important not only for individual growth but also for productivity. By providing employment experiences early, youth are exposed to employment skills that will follow them through future careers. Role of Employers Employment not only benefits young people but employers as well. Employers can increase their financial and productivity goals by investing in a skilled workforce, particularly in the current economic environment (Martinson, 2010). For example, employers spend over $400 billion a year in providing both formal and informal training to employees who have already completed their schooling and are currently working full-time (Casner-Lotto et al, 2006). By providing jobs through youth employment programs, not only are employers preparing youth at an early age for employment, but can also rely on the program to support early training efforts at a low cost. This allows for employers to spend less time and costs on training while preparing their future workforce. Employers also play an important role in preparing youth for successful transition into adulthood. Not only do they provide opportunities for work-linked learning but often also play a role as advisor and trainer in relevant skills (Casner-Lotto et al., 2006). Furthermore, employers provide natural exposure to careers and youth development practice. Employers can provide developmental assets to youth that no other setting can fully duplicate. For example, they can provide exposure to the mainstream economy, practices of the working world, authentic
10
information about career options and paths, and opportunities to apply formal learning to solve real-world problems in a team setting (Whalen et al, 2003). III. Methodology Overview This study consists of two components: a process evaluation and an outcome evaluation. The process evaluation examines the operation of the DC SYEP, including services provided, participant characteristics, and enrollment of participants. This allows for feedback on the processes for implementing the program with the intention of improving the program (McDavid and Hawthorn, 2006). Specifically in this evaluation this component includes measures of services provided (characteristics of the participants, enrollment of participants, program offerings leading to learning opportunities), use (youth attendance) and satisfaction (youth and supervisor satisfaction). A pre participation (pre) survey and a post participation (post) survey are used to collection information from youth on their experience and satisfaction with the program. A separate post survey is used to collect information from supervisors on their satisfaction with the program. In addition, focus groups and interviews provide further insight to satisfaction with the program. Lastly, SYEP records provide demographic characteristics of the youth enrolled in the program. The outcome evaluation provides information on the effects of the program on youth behaviors. It follows a single group pre-post design to measure the short-term effects of SYEP on employability skills and mastery and future orientation as it relates to career goals. This allows for feedback on whether the program is successful in reaching its objectives and provides recommendations for further implementation and replication. The pre and post surveys were
11
used to collect information on the youths perceptions of the outcomes at the beginning and end of the program. To assess achievement of the program objectives and research questions, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Youth and supervisor surveys were developed specifically for this study to capture how the youth and supervisors satisfaction with the program how the youth perceived the program had an effect on their employability skills, mastery and future orientation, and provided learning opportunities geared towards these outcomes with the program. Focus groups with youth and employers that participated in the 2011 DC SYEP were used to obtain anecdotal information of the youth and supervisors about their experiences with the DC SYEP. Study Population Youth and supervisors were selected to participate in this study based on their participation in the DC SYEP. All participants were identified by the DC SYEP and all initial contact with the participants including providing information about the evaluation as well as disseminating the surveys was made through the DC SYEP staff. The eligible study population included the youth (n=12,651) and adults (n=2,243) who applied and served as participants and supervisors, respectively, to the 2011 DC SYEP. The inclusion criteria required a youth participant or supervisor to be accepted and enrolled in the DC SYEP in order to be eligible to participate in the study. This was necessary because the study is focusing on the experiences and impact of participation in the program. A data sharing agreement as well as specific evaluation tasks to be completed was obtained in May 2011 through a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOES, which administers the DC youth program and CYITC
12
which provides the curriculum and training to DOES, and where the author of this paper was employed while conducting the study. The youth survey was administered at the start of the program and again at the end of the program via Zoomerang7, an online survey software. The youth survey remained open through the first two weeks of the program and again the last week and three weeks following the conclusion of the program to help increase response rates. Youth received a link to complete the questionnaire through an email sent by the DC SYEP staff to all participants. This email also explained the purpose of the evaluation and consent requirements and details. A reminder email was sent both for the pre and post surveys. No compensation was given outside of the regular pay that is provided during work hours. The supervisor survey was administered the last week of the program via Zoomerang and remained open until the end of September 2011 (a total of five weeks). Initial requests to complete the survey were sent from the DC SYEP staff by email to all participating supervisors at the conclusion of the program. In order to increase the response rate, two additional reminder emails were sent in early September as well as one week before the survey was scheduled to close. Copies of correspondence with youth participants and supervisors, and the youth participant and supervisor surveys are attached (see Appendix A). Individuals engaging in the focus groups were recruited by the DC SYEP staff. An email was sent inviting all the DC SYEP supervisors and youth-participants to participate in a discussion of their experiences with participating in the DC SYEP. Those interested in participating replied to the DC SYEP staff and the staff followed up with provision of the logistical information. Four supervisor focus groups and two youth-participant focus groups
See http://www.zoomerang.com
13
took place at the DOES located in Ward 7. A third youth focus group took place at a local community-based organization (CBO) which is located in Ward 6. Transportation funding and refreshments were provided. Interviews with 17 supervisors were held by telephone to gain further insight into strengths, challenges, as well as feedback for the program. Interviews were conducted in addition to focus groups to provide supervisors who were unable to attend the focus groups or those supervisors who wanted a more intimate climate, an opportunity to participate in the evaluation. The author sent an email providing this opportunity to a random sample of 100 supervisors whose contact information was provided by DC SYEP. The author conducted phone calls with the supervisors from September to November and each interview lasted about 45 minutes. Survey Respondents An attempt was made to have all youth participants (n=12,651) complete the survey; however, only a 7.3 percent response rate for the pre survey (n= 931) and 7.0 percent response rate for the post survey (n=888) were achieved. According to Fitz-Gibbon and Morris (1987), for a population size of over 10,000, an adequate sample size is 350 (Fitz-Gibbon et al, 1987). This allows for ample consideration for dropouts, non-responses, and those youth under 18 years that were not able to obtain parental consent. Analysis of this subgroup of respondents showed similar representation of the total youth population with respect to age, ward of residence, and grade level of the youth. Therefore, the findings from the survey can also be representative of the entire DC SYEP youth participant population. All participating supervisors (n=2,243) were also invited to participate in the survey process. A total of 213 supervisors completed the supervisor survey, generating a 9 percent response rate (n=2,243).
14
Focus Group and Interview Respondents The subjects in the three youth focus groups included 60 youth (n=24, n=13, n=23) ranging from the ages of 14 to 21 years. There were approximately an equal number of males and females and ages represented in each of the focus groups. The first two focus groups only included participants in the DC SYEP, however the third focus group included 10 youth who applied for the program but did not participate due to the limited spaces available for the program or not turning in their eligibility documents. These youth were recruited via DOES through an email sent to participants who applied for the program but were not accepted. These youth were asked via DOES to participate to provide feedback on the application process and what the youth did during the summer instead of participating in the program. The subjects in the four supervisor focus groups included 92 supervisors (n=15, n=22, n=33, n=22). These subjects represented CBO, private corporations, and government agencies including schools, however a majority (over 80%) was from CBO and government agencies with the remaining from private corporations. Telephone interviews were conducted with an additional 17 supervisors, which included representatives from all types of host agencies, and new supervisors (six) as well as supervisors returning to the DC SYEP. All of the participants who participated in the interviews also completed the survey. Protection of Human Subjects Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The George Washington University (GWU) School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, DC (IRB# 61125). Eligible participants were identified by the DC SYEP staff and all email communication including sending the link for the surveys and
15
coordination of the focus groups took place by the DC SYEP staff. However, supervisors recruited for the interviews were chosen at random by the DC SYEP staff and the researcher was provided this randomly generated list of 100 potential participants and their contact information. The researcher then scheduled and conducted interviews with those that responded to an email asking for their interest in participating. Informed consent (a copy is provided in Appendix A) was obtained from all individuals enrolled in the study as well as their parents if they were under the age of 18 years. If minor youth expressed interest in participating, a consent form was sent home with the child to their parents by their supervisor and returned to the researcher via scanned emails or fax. Youth 18 years and over and supervisors signed the consent electronically on the first page of the survey and via a link sent to participate in the interviews or focus groups. Participation in the study was completely voluntary and participants could discontinue participating at any given time with no consequences. Furthermore, the questions asked were not intended to be of a sensitive nature. Confidentiality was ensured to participants by removal of any personally identifiable information, such as names, when collecting and sharing data; and completion of the surveys, focus groups or interviews did not create any risk of harm to participants. Aside from the time spent completing the surveys and/or participating in the focus groups or interviews, there were no costs to youth or supervisors associated with participating in the study. Data Sources and Collection Methods This study follows a single group pre-post design utilizing both qualitative and quantitative techniques including interviews and focus groups, surveys, and SYEP records to
16
obtain characteristics of youth and supervisors; and their experiences, successes, and challenges in the program; and overall development. The study time period is the six-week program period. Figure 1. Design Notation for Outcome Evaluation Youth-Participants 6 Weeks Pre Survey E E X O Youth Survey A survey was created to assess the short-term, six week outcomes as well as participants overall experiences with SYEP (see Figure 1). The specific purpose of the survey was to measure the scope, quality, and satisfaction of youth participation in the DC SYEP as well as the effect of the DC SYEP on their employability skills and mastery and future orientation as it relates to employability (research questions 1, 2, and 3). The survey instrument was developed using items from existing surveys such as Detroits Summer Youth Employment Program Evaluation 2010, MyCom Summer Work Readiness Assessment, and The Colorado Trust Youth Participant Survey (Shanks and McGee, 2010; Flannery et al, 2009, The Colorado Trust, 2004; Nielsen and McGhee, 2005). These surveys addressed youth employment experiences as well as risk behaviors. The final pre participation survey included 73 closed-ended questions and the final post participation survey included 74 closed-ended questions (see Appendix B and C). The total time associated with taking the survey was 10 to 15 minutes. O DC SYEP X Post Survey O
SYEP Youth Participants DC SYEP Observation
17
Face validity, which is the degree to which an instrument appears to measure what it is designed to measure, was assessed for the new instrument by having non-experts in the youth development field review the survey as well as by pilot testing the survey using a convenience sample of ten youth who previously participated in the program but did not this year due to age restriction or missing application deadlines. These two groups assessed the length and readability of the questions. Specifically the non-experts were chosen on the basis that they could provide input on if the questions asked seemed to pertain to the programs and outcomes, and youth were chosen because they are familiar with the program and could provide feedback on how understandable and relevant they felt the questions were. Content validity, the extent to which a tool reflects the intended domain of content, was assessed by a panel of experts including two faculty members at GWU and three researchers in the youth development field. This panel was chosen as they have experience with youth development programs and evaluation methods. They were specifically asked to judge the relevance of the items on the survey. After the pilot testing, no major areas of inquiry were changed within the survey instrument. Supervisor Survey A supervisor post-program survey was developed to gather information on satisfaction with the DC SYEP (see Appendix D). This survey was intended to be descriptive and gather information on program implementation. The survey included items adapted from Detroits Summer Youth Program 2010 Evaluation (Shanks et al, 2010). The survey consisted of 34 closed-ended questions that collected information on respondent demographics and experiences with the 2011 program. The total time associated with taking the survey was 10 minutes.
18
Content and face validity were also assessed with the supervisor survey as it is an adapted version of an existing survey. Face validity was assessed by pilot-testing of the survey with a convenience sample of five supervisors who had previously participated in SYEP was conducted as they had experience with the program and could provide feedback on questions that should be removed or asked. In addition, content validity was examined by experts in the field, such as SYEP staff and GWU faculty, reviewed the survey and specifically assessed the length, readability, and overall content of the survey questions. After the pilot testing, no major areas of inquiry were changed within the survey instrument. SYEP Records SYEP records provide information regarding characteristics of the work sites that host the youths employment experiences and the characteristics and total enrollment of youth participants. The DC SYEP provided these records at the end of the 2011 summer program. Specific de-identified information included the ward in which the youth resides, age of youth, and education level of youth. Focus Group A focus group protocol was developed for youth-participants and supervisors with input from SYEP staff regarding specific programmatic feedback they wanted including the overall application process and selection of youth (see Appendix E). The purpose of the focus groups was to provide a snap shot of perspectives and perceptions or anecdotal information to supplement the survey and administrative data or SYEP records (Creswell, 2003). The youth focus group included 37 guiding questions in 7 categories. The supervisor focus group included 52 guiding questions in 5 categories. It should be noted that qualitative assessments are not subject to internal and external validity criteria.
19
Each focus group session began with a brief introductory presentation about the DC SYEP 2011, which was developed by the DC SYEP staff as well as discussed the purpose of the focus group. After the introductory presentation, general questions such as overall experience of participation were asked. The participants were then placed in random groups of six where they were asked further questions about their SYEP experience using the appropriate protocol. The DC SYEP staff conducted the focus groups, with the help of the researcher, to take advantage of the fact that the DC SYEP staff had developed a good relationship with the supervisors and the youth-participants. The total time of each focus group was between one and two hours. Interviews A structured interview protocol was developed consisting of 27 open-ended questions. Questions addressed supervisors satisfaction and experience with SYEP, their perceptions regarding the SYEPs progress towards meeting the programs objectives of providing youth meaningful work experiences and strengths and challenges of program implementation (see Appendix F). In addition, supervisors were asked to provide recommendations for future SYEP programming offerings. Each interview took between 45 minutes and one hour. The focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Description of Variables Variables for demographics, learning opportunities, satisfaction, employability, and mastery and future orientation were created using items from the youth surveys (with the exception of supervisor satisfaction which utilized one item from the supervisor survey). Table 1 lists these variables, their level of measurement, and possible score ranges. For the youth outcomes, responses to Yes/No and Likert-scaled questions were used to create continuous
20
variables representing each of these outcomes. Reverse coding for questions in which higher scores were more negative, occurred for questions, as necessary. Demographics: Descriptive variables were created using responses to demographic questions regarding gender/sex (coded 0 if female and 1 if male), ethnicity/race (coded 0 if other and 1 if black), and age (coded 1 if 14 or 15 years, 2 if 16 or 17 years, 3 if 18 to 21 years). Ages were grouped based on several dimensions that differentiated them: SYEP provides youth 14 and 15 years with opportunities to work a maximum of 20 hours per week in placements that are geared towards work readiness skills; 16 and 17 year olds are most likely those that attended the program in the past and now work a maximum of 25 hours per week in positions that allow them to practice work skills they may have gained in previous experiences; and 18 to 21 year olds are similar to the 16-17 year old group, but are most likely out of high school. Ward was categorized as 1 if youth resides in Wards 1 or 4; 2 if resides in Wards 2, 3, or 6; 3 if resides in Ward 7, or 4 if resides Ward 8. These categories were chosen as each of the Wards that were paired has similar social demographics. Education level was coded as 1 if the youth was in high school or below, 2 if graduated high school and not attended college, 3 if currently in college, 4 if had some college but did not complete, and 5 if graduated from college. Lastly, prior participation in the DC SYEP was coded as 0 if the youth was a new participant, 1 if it was their second summer participating in the program, 2 if third summer, and 3 if they had participated four or more summers.
21
Learning Opportunities: The variable learning opportunities was created using an item from the youth post survey What job skills do you think you learned through participating in SYEP? (0 if selected I learned nothing from participating in SYEP. and 1 if selected a skill learned). Satisfaction: The variable satisfaction was created using an item from the post survey Overall, how satisfied are you with your participation in SYEP? and coded 1 if very satisfied, 2 if somewhat satisfied, and 3 if not satisfied at all. Employability: A variable employability was created from youth responses to eight Yes/No questions. A summated rating scale was derived from responses to specific questions (where 0 was given if response was No and 1 if response was Yes): Do you think that there are rules you are expected to follow at work?; Do you think you should ask questions if you do not understand what you are supposed to do at work?; Do you feel like you have to call your supervisor if you are going to be just a few minutes late?; Do you feel it would be okay to take off a few days from work without telling your supervisor?; Do you think it is important to have a clean and neat appearance at work?; Do you have a cover letter?; and Do you have a resume? Higher scores suggest a positive outcome or increase in the likelihood of employability. Mastery and Future Orientation: A variable mastery and future orientation was created from youth responses to one question with a Yes/No response and two questions with a Likert-scaled response, which included three optional responses, but was converted to a dichotomous variable (Yes/No) as described next. The variable was created by using a summated rating scale derived from
22
responses to the following questions (where 0 was given if the response was No and 1 if the response was Yes): Can you name three careers you are interested in?; How much do you think the things you may learn in SYEP will help you later in life? (Yes if responded, Help me very much. or Help me a little bit., and No if responded, Not help me at all.); and How optimistic are you about your future? (Yes if responded The future looks great. or The future looks ok. and No if responded, The future looks very bad.) Higher total scores indicate higher perception of mastery and future.
23
Table 1.
Youth Participant Survey Variables

# of Items Level of Measurement Possible Range 0 = female 1 = male 1 = 14 15 years 2 = 16 17 years 3 = 18 21 years 1 = wards 1 and 4 2 = wards 2, 3, and 6 3 = ward 7 4 = ward 8 0 = other 1 = black 1 = high school or below 2 = high school, no college 3 = currently in college 4 = some college 5 = graduate from college 0 = new participant 1 = second summer 2 = third summer 3 = four summers or more 0 = no 1 = yes 1 = very satisfied 2 = somewhat satisfied 3 = not satisfied at all 1 = very satisfied 2 = somewhat satisfied 3 = not satisfied at all 08 04
Variable Demographics Gender/Sex
Nominal
Age
Ordinal
Ward
Ordinal
Ethnicity/Race
Nominal
Education Level
Nominal
Prior Participant Learning Opportunities Gained Job Skills Satisfaction Youth Satisfaction
Nominal
Nominal
Ordinal
Supervisor Satisfaction Youth Outcomes Employability Mastery and Future
Ordinal
7 3
Continuous Continuous
24
Data Analysis Procedures All quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version 9.3. All qualitative data was analyzed using NVIVO 8.0. Review of data, including double entry and data checks, was implemented to ensure data accuracy and assumptions are met for the statistical tests being conducted. Descriptive Analysis Univariate analysis was conducted to provide descriptive statistics on all participants as well as those who completed the survey (sample characteristics). Specifically, frequency distribution was conducted on age, gender/sex, highest grade completed, parents education level, ethnicity/race, language spoken at home, years participating in the DC SYEP, and parents or guardians employment status. These findings relate to the process evaluation to see if the program reached the intended population. Test of Hypotheses The hypotheses for the three research questions were tested as outlined below. An alpha of 0.05 was used to assess the significance of findings. Hypothesis 1.1: At the end of the six-week program, at least 65 percent of the youth participants will report via survey that they were learned skills geared towards (1) employability and (2) mastery and future orientation. To test hypothesis 1.1, a one-tailed, directional z-test for single binomial proportion was employed. The research question examined one population (youth participants) with one categorical binomial variable (engaging opportunities yes or no) and a predefined proportion (65 percent).
25
Hypothesis 2.1: At the end of the six-week program, at least 65 percent of youth participants will be satisfied with their overall participation in the program. To test hypothesis 2.1, a one-tailed, directional z-test for single binomial proportion was employed. The research question examined one population (youth participant) with one categorical variable (satisfaction very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not satisfied at all) and a predefined proportion (65 percent). Specifically, the level tested was very satisfied. Hypothesis 2.2: At the end of the six-week program, at least 65 percent of supervisors will be very satisfied with their overall participation in the program. To test hypothesis 2.2, a one-tailed, directional z-test for single binomial proportion was employed. The research question examined one population (supervisor) with one categorical variable (satisfaction very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not satisfied at all) and a predefined proportion (65 percent). Specifically, the level tested was very satisfied. Hypothesis 3.1: By the end of the six-week program, youth participants will display an increase in employability skills as measured by self-report in pre and post participation surveys. Hypothesis 3.2: By the end of the six-week program, youth participants will display an increase in mastery and future orientation as it relates to employability skills as measured by self-report in pre and post participation surveys. To test hypotheses 3.1 and 3.2, a one-tailed paired samples t-test was employed for each respective outcome (employability and mastery and future orientation). The research question examined one population and two mean scores (pre and post survey) that are likely correlated with each other. Due to this correlation, the mean of the differences must be tested rather that the difference of the means.
26
Next, a multiple linear regression was conducted on each respective outcome (employability and mastery and future orientation) to assess if demographics (including gender/sex, age, ethnicity/race, education level, Ward, and prior participation) were predictive of a difference if it was seen. Lastly, multivariate linear regression was conducted to assess if demographics (categorical variables including gender/sex, age, ethnicity/race, education level, Ward, and prior participation) affected the relationship between pre and post survey scores (continuous variables). Due to the fact that the same youth did not take the pre and post surveys, data had to be matched on demographic characteristics to account for this missing data. The demographics were equivalent for those youth who took the pre survey and those who took the post survey respondents making this possible. To estimate the missing pre survey and post survey scores for each of the three outcomes (employability and mastery and future) each outcome variable was regressed on each of the demographic variables to create a regression model. These models were then used to complete this missing data. This new dataset was used with the data analysis procedures explained above for hypotheses 3.1 and 3.2. The results of this study should be considered cautiously due to the repeat here. Qualitative Analysis All interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Once the initial data was transcribed, coding was completed to retrieved predetermined concepts (see section for discussion of coding). The coded data was then reviewed to determine emerging concepts of participant-youth and supervisor experiences and future recommendations for SYEP.
27
Study Limitations It must be emphasized that this research comprises a pilot study, since the DC SYEP has not undergone an outcome evaluation in the past. However, the organization engaged in a qualitative assessment of program offerings and satisfaction of the supervisor participants in 2010. Findings from this study are intended to not only provide results on short-term youth participant outcomes but also provide recommendations for future the DC SYEP programming and provide preliminary information to set the stage for future evaluations. The evaluation was developed in a limited time frame to ensure that it could be implemented during the summer of 2011 and provide DOES with much-needed preliminary results in a timely manner. Therefore, the evaluation was designed as the necessary starting point for a longer term process. This study is intended to serve as a baseline; future iterations of the evaluation, including improvements to survey and interview questions, are intended to provide DOES with increasingly useful information. Furthermore, measurement tools, i.e., the surveys and focus groups and interview protocols, were developed specifically for this pilot study and procedures were designed to reach the largest number of youth participants served by the DC SYEP. Further validity testing of the surveys should occur to ensure that the tools are measuring what they are intended to measure. The data relies heavily on self-reported information which can be unintentionally biased due to recall bias. Another limitation of this study was the necessity of relying on the DC SYEP staff to distribute the surveys. As the researcher could not ensure that the survey was being distributed in a timely manner, this posed a control issue. Also, while instructions were clear and precise, this does not eliminate the possibility that the DC SYEP staff and/or supervisors may have
28
influenced the participants responses for example, by being present while the youth completed the survey. Lastly, as this evaluation was performed for the DC SYEP, the relationship between academia/research and social service practice needs to be taken into account. The goals for this study and those for the DC SYEP need to be balanced with the needs of the author conducting this study as part of academic requirements. This was a limitation, as many best practices for researchsuch as having unbiased parties distribute the surveyscould not be incorporated due to policies of the DC SYEP. IV. Findings The process evaluation results are assessed through the descriptive analysis of the characteristics of all youth participants and characteristics of the youth from the study sample (pre and post surveys completed), as well as the testing of hypotheses 1 (learning opportunities) and 2 (satisfaction). This is complemented with the outcome findings through the testing of hypothesis 3 (employability skills and mastery and future orientation). Descriptive Analysis (Youth and Supervisor Enrollment and Program Offerings) SYEP Youth Participants Table 2a and 2b show the demographic and academic characteristics of all participants (N=12,651) and sample (N=931 in pre survey and N=888 in post survey), respectively. SYEP served about an equal number of males (N=5,664 or 45 percent) and females (N=6,987 or 55 percent). In addition, a majority of the youth were in high school or below (76 percent) and between the ages of 14 and 17 years (62 percent) (M = 16.87 years, SD = 2.00). Although youth participated from all wards, most of the participants came from Wards 7 and 8 combined (53 percent). Most of the youth identified themselves as Black (Non-Hispanic) (93 percent). Lastly,
29
the DC SYEP has a high retention rate with about 88 percent of the participants returning to participate from a previous year. SYEP Youth Participant Study Sample The pre and post survey respondents included two-thirds female (67 percent and 67 percent, respectively) and one-third males (33 percent and 33 percent, respectively). Over half the participants were ages 14 to 17 years (about 55 percent in the pre survey and 57 percent in the post survey) and from wards 7 and 8 (52 percent in the pre survey and 48 percent in the post survey). There was a high non-response rate on the surveys for youth identifying their Ward (20 percent pre participation and 23 percent post survey) which could be due to youth not knowing in which Ward they live. Similar to the all DC SYEP youth participants (93 percent), a majority of the youth (over 90 percent) in the sample identified themselves as Black (Non-Hispanic). In addition, over half of the study participants live with their mother (57 percent pre and 60 percent post survey). In addition, most of the participants lived in a household with three or more people and in which English was the primary language (92 percent). The highest education level obtained by a parent most often reported was high school or a GED (41 percent in the pre and 31 percent in the post survey), however there also was a high percentage of a parent having some college (30 percent in the pre and 30 percent in the post survey) or college and above (27 in the pre and 31 percent in the post survey). In addition, it was found that about 80 percent of youth in the pre survey, as compared with 70 percent in the post survey, has at least one parent currently employed in the post survey.
30
Table 2a. Demographic Characteristics of SYEP Youth Participants

SYEP Youth DC Youth
N N Characteristic Total = 12,651 % Total=69,352 % Gender/Sex Female 6,987 55% 36,615 53%* Male 5,664 45% 32,737 47%* Age 14 1,736 14% 5,140 7% 15 2,049 16% 5,347 8% 16 2,060 16% 5,659 8% 17 2,051 16% 6,008 9% 18 1,869 15% 9,656 14% 19 1,339 11% 13,249 19% 20 982 8% 12,516 18% 21 565 4% 11,777 17% Ward 1 829 7% 7,603 11%* 2 258 2% 14,196 20%* 3 60 <1% 7,678 11%* 4 1,563 12% 6,269 9%* 5 2,096 17% 9,478 14%* 6 1,018 8% 4,836 7%* 7 3,444 28% 9,060 13%* 8 3,245 26% 10,232 15%* No Response 138 Ethnicity/Race American Indian 61 <1% Asian (Non-Hispanic) 72 <1% Black (Non-Hispanic) 10,576 93% Hispanic/Latino 385 3% Pacific Islander 8 <1% White (Non-Hispanic) 36 <1% Other 230 2% No Response 1,283 Education Level High School or Below 9,631 76% High School Graduate 1,066 9% GED Recipient 232 2% Left High School No Graduate 186 1% College Student 1,530 12% No Response 6 Prior SYEP Participant Yes 11,131 88% No 1,520 12% *Comparison of SYEP youth demographics to overall DC youth population found that all * are comparable (p<0.05) except age. These figures include enrollment of non-DC students in universities (Source: Census, 2011).
31
Table 2b. Demographic Characteristics of SYEP Youth Survey Respondents

Pre Survey Youth Sample Characteristic Gender/Sex Male Female No Response Age 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 No Response Ward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No Response Ethnicity/Race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispanic or Latino White No Response Prior SYEP Participant New Participant Second Summer Third Summer Four of More Summers No Response Continued on the next page. N Total = 931 920 305 615 11 912 109 173 140 122 143 97 75 53 19 747 36 16 22 121 103 64 172 213 184 892 8 8 827 42 7 39 910 225 207 214 264 20 % 99% 33% 67% 98% 12% 19% 15% 13% 16% 10% 8% 6% 80% 5% 2% 3% 16% 14% 8% 23% 29% 96% <1% <1% 93% 5% <1% 98% 24% 23% 24% 29% Post Survey N Total = 888 879 293 586 9 869 94 160 126 117 138 107 76 51 19 733 40 16 7 116 96 74 183 201 155 824 5 7 783 22 7 64 831 217 180 196 238 57 % 99% 33% 67% 98 11% 18% 15% 13% 16% 12% 9% 6% 83% 5% 3% 1% 13% 11% 8% 21% 23% 93% 1% 1% 95% 2% 1% 94% 26% 22% 23% 29% -
32
Table 2b. Demographic Characteristics of SYEP Youth Survey RespondentsContinued

Pre Survey Post Survey % 98% 7% 18% 19% 16% 18% 4% 9% 5% 2% 1% <1% <1% 97% 24% 4% 60% 12% 98% 1% 14% 24% 24% 17% 20% 87 % 4% 35% 30% 31% 87% 70% 17% 13% 95% 92% 2% 2% 5%
N N Youth Sample Characteristic Total = 931 % Total = 888 Highest Level of Education 915 98% 868 8th Grade or Lower 73 8% 64 9th Grade 181 20% 153 10th Grade 151 17% 162 11th Grade 163 18% 141 12th Grade 139 15% 154 High School/GED and No College 56 6% 36 Freshman in College 60 7% 81 Sophomore in College 51 6% 45 Junior in College 25 3% 20 Senior in College 7 <1% 7 Left College Before Completing 4 <1% 4 Graduated from College 5 <1% 1 No Response 16 20 Family Structure 918 99% 861 Lives with Both Mother and Father 219 24% 201 Lives with Father 50 5% 36 Lives with Mother 554 57% 520 Other 95 10% 104 No Response 13 27 Household Size 874 94% 866 1 13 1% 13 2 122 14% 120 3 220 25% 205 4 220 25% 209 5 155 18% 146 6 or More 144 17% 173 No Response 57 22 Parent Education Level 834 90% 771 Middle School/Junior High School 22 2% 27 High School or GED 340 41% 273 Some College 247 30% 235 College or Above 225 27% 236 No Response 97 117 At Least 1 Parent Employed 849 90% 773 Yes 678 80% 624 No 171 20% 149 No Response 82 115 Primary Language 917 96% 844 English 879 96% 816 Spanish 23 3% 15 Other 15 1% 13 No Response 14 44 These numbers represent the number and percent who responded to each question.
33
Job Placements The largest number of host work sites (38 percent) and positions (34 percent) available to the youth were through the local, non-profit, CBOs. Fifty-two percent of youth were employed in DC Public Charter School (DCPCS), DC Public Schools (DCPS), and DC Agencies. In addition, the DC agencies provided the largest number of supervisors (40 percent). Table 3 provides this information and other statistics on employer organizations. Table 3. Supervisor Organizations
Total Host Work Sites N Total=465 22 (5%) 13 (3%) 76 (16%) 46 (10%) 179 (38%) 129 (28%) Total Supervisors N Total=2,243 52 (1%) 74 (2%) 1,090 (48%) 235 (10%) 612 (27%) 280 (12%) Total Positions at Each Site N Total=16,629 1,303 (8%) 655 (4%) 6,692 (40%) 791 (5%) 5,802 (34%) 1,476 (9%)
Type of Organization DCPCS DCPS DC Agency Federal Agency Non-Profit CBO Private Sector
SYEP Supervisor Study Sample Analysis of the characteristics of the sample of supervisor survey respondents to all of the DC SYEP supervisors, found that the sub-sample of respondents is comparable representation of the total supervisor population with respect to type of organization (see Table 4 below) therefore results of the survey can be generalizable to the total DC SYEP supervisors. Most supervisors are executive directors or program managers (63 percent). In addition, many of the supervisors are returning to participate for another summer in the DC SYEP, with over half participating for three or more summers. This high retention rate (74 percent) shows commitment to the program. In addition, more than half have been employed with their organization or agency for over five years. Most of the work sites hosted one to ten youth (47 percent). Lastly, a majority of the supervisors reported that the main purpose of their
34
organization or agency was to serve youth (25 percent) or provide educational activities (21 percent). Table 4. Characteristics of SYEP Supervisor Survey Participants
Supervisor Respondents N Total = 213 70 22 98 21 2 84 5 9 67 46 22 9 16 78 27 40 43 103 43 59 75 36 55 50 108 79 134 100 30 83
Characteristic Type of Organization Government Agency For-Profit Organization Non-Profit/Community Based Organization School/University Other Purpose of Organization Youth Faith Law Enforcement Education Community Improvement or Development Arts or culture Sales or retail Health Other Years Worked at Organization Less than 1 year 1 to 2 years 3 to 5 years 5 or more years Role in Organization Administration Executive Director/Manager Program Manager Other Prior SYEP Participant New Participant Second Summer Three or More Summers Age of Youth Employed 14 to 16 years 17 to 21 years Number of Youth Employed 1 to 10 youth 11 to 20 youth More than 20 youth
% 34% 10% 46% 10% <1% 25% 1% 2% 21% 14% 7% 2% 5% 23% 12% 19% 20% 49% 20% 28% 35% 17% 26% 23% 51% 37% 63% 47% 14% 39%
35
Post Program Youth Participant Survey Learning Opportunities (Research Question 1) and Satisfaction (Research Question 2) Table 5 shows the results from the z-test for single binomial proportion for the testing of research questions 1 (learning opportunities) and 2 (satisfaction). Table 6 shows the specific skills the youth reported that they learned. The proportion of youth participants stating they had opportunities for learning was 0.9505 (z-value=1.9875, p-value=0.0234). Further, the analysis shows that when asked about the top three skills learned, 51 percent of the youth responded, being responsible, 47 percent stated, reporting to work on time, and 42 percent youth said, dressing appropriately for work (see Table 6). The proportion of youth who stated they were satisfied with the program was 68 percent (z-value=18.771, p-value <0.0001). It should be noted this is a conservative calculation, as only responses of very satisfied were considered as the indicator of satisfaction. The percentage would be even higher if responses of somewhat satisfied were included. The results for supervisor satisfaction produced a proportion of 67 percent or 0.6786 (z-value, 0.8386, p-value 0.2008) for very satisfied. When considering somewhat satisfied as an indicator of satisfaction, the proportion was 96 percent or 0.9643 with a z-value of 9.225 (p-value <0.0001). Table 5. Results of z-test for Single Binomial Proportion (Hypothesis 1.1)
Total N Learning Opportunities Youth Satisfaction Very Satisfied Supervisor Satisfaction **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05 Very Satisfied/Somewhat Satisfied 888 649 196 196 Sample 0.9505 0.6872 0.6786 0.9643 z-value 18.771 1.9875 0.8386 9.2225 p-value <0.0001** 0.0234* 0.2008 <0.0001**
36
Table 6.
Specific Learning Opportunities Reported by Youth8

Youth Respondents listing this experience N Total = 844 % 195 259 289 256 152 307 289 278 396 351 277 264 429 23% 31% 34% 30% 18% 36% 34% 33% 47% 42% 33% 31% 51%
List of Learning Opportunities From Which Youth Could Choose/Select Computer skills Problem-solving Public speaking Accepting supervision Financial management skills Importance of a career Communication skills How to be organized Reporting to work on time Dressing appropriately for work Completing assignments on time Asking for help Being responsible
Pre-Post Program Youth Participant Survey Short-Term Impact (Research Question 3) Hypothesis 3.1: Employability Comparing the means from pre to post surveys shows a decrease from pre survey score mean (M = 6.435) to the post survey score mean (M = 6.256) (See Table 7). Further analysis of the results from the paired samples t-test showed that this difference was significant (t-value = 7.72, p-value <0.0001). However, it should be noted that the direction was different than hypothesized, with the average rating of employability skills decreasing in the post survey. Next, the results from the ANOVA show that pre survey scores have a positive relationship with post survey scores (R2 = 0.007, b = 0.075, t-value = 2.85, p-value = 0.004) (Table 8). Table 9 provides the results of the linear regression. When demographics including gender/sex, ward, age, grade, and if the youth was a prior participant are included in a regression analysis, it was
Responses to post survey question: What job skills did you think you learned through participating in SYEP? Select all that apply.
37
found that being from Ward 8 was associated with decreased self-reported employability while being either in a higher grade level or a prior participant in the program was associated with increased self-reported employability (R2 = 0.133) (See Table 9). Hypothesis 3.2: Mastery and Future Orientation Comparing the means from pre surveys to post surveys shows an increase from pre survey score mean (M = 2.750) to post survey score mean (M = 2.809) (See Table 7). Further analysis of the results from the paired samples t-test showed that this difference was significant (t-value = 4.49, p-value = 0.64). Next, the results from ANOVA show that the youth scores on the survey after the program were not found to be significantly related to their scores before the program (R2 = 0.001, t-value = 0.008, p-value = 0.789) (see Table 8 below). Also, when demographics were included in the model, it was found that, as age group increased, selfreported perception of mastery and future orientation also increased (R2 = 0.028) (see Table 9 below). Table 7. Means Results for Short-Term Impacts (Hypothesis 3)
n Employability Difference = -0.179 Pre survey Post survey Master and Future Difference = 0.059 Pre survey Post survey
**p< 0.01, *p< 0.05
M (CI)
t-value
p-value
1252
6.435 (6.401 6.470) 6.256 (6.224 6.288)
-7.72
<0.0001**
1291
2.750 (2.732 2.768) 2.809 (2.791 2.827)
4.49
<0.0001**
38
Table 8.
ANOVA Results for Short-Term Impacts (Hypotheses 3)

b SE t-value p-value
Employability Intercept Pre survey Mastery and Future Intercept Pre survey **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05 2.788 0.008 0.0782 0.0282 35.67 0.27 <0.0001** 0.789 5.774 0.075 0.1698 0.0262 34.00 2.85 <0.0001** 0.004**
Table 9.
Linear Regression Results for Short Term-Impacts (Hypotheses 3)9

b SE t-value p-value
Employability Intercept Gender/Sex Ward Age Grade Prior Participant Mastery and Future Orientation Intercept Gender/Sex Ward Age Grade Prior Participant **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05 2.758 0.0002 -0.023 0.021 0.019 0.021 0.081 0.028 0.020 0.006 0.014 0.014 34.11 0.01 -1.20 3.45 1.41 1.55 <0.0001** 0.994 0.229 0.001** 0.160 0.123 5.728 0.003 -0.085 -0.00003 0.168 0.085 0.166 0.025 0.033 0.010 0.023 0.023 34.49 0.12 -2.54 -0.00 7.31 3.69 <0.0001** 0.903 0.011* 0.998 <0.0001** 0.0002**
Findings from the Focus Groups and Interviews The qualitative results provide more in-depth findings/anecdotal information to enhance the meaning of the data as it relates to objectives for the process study (youth reach, program implementation, and satisfaction) and the youth outcomes (employability and mastery and
Ethnicity/Race not included as 93 percent of youth respondents were African American.
39
future orientation). Overall major and emerging themes that were found from the focus groups and interviews were Youth Recruitment (application process), Program Implementation (preparedness for employment, quality of supervisors, and support for supervisors), Satisfaction (Overall satisfaction and job placement satisfaction), and Youth Outcomes (job readiness and work skills and future goals). Youth Recruitment Application Process and Communication of Deadlines 10 The youth application process consists of an online application through the SYEP Youth Portal and a document certification. After the youth successfully complete the online application, they are required to bring their eligibility documents to DOES. Areas around the youth and supervisor application process and communication of deadlines were themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis. Overall, the actual task of going to the Web site to fill out the program application was found to be straightforward and youth. As one youth who was new to the program stated: It was my first year doing this and it was user friendly. Likewise, supervisors from the focus groups and interviews found the application process easy and liked the transparency of information on the Web site in regards to the supervisor application. For example, a supervisor, who participated in the program last summer, stated: The portal overall worked well, everything online. They also did a much better job of informing us with program information. This was done by email and [the] DOES website. Email was good and having everything posted clearly on [the] DOES website was good.
10
See http://does.dc.gov/does/cwp/view,a,1232,q,644003.asp for more information on this process and the forms used by the program.
40
Although the online application step was favored by the youth, the second step of turning in the eligibility documents (proof of residency in DC, be between the ages of 14 and 21 years prior to the start of the program, social security card and birth certificate to verify eligibility to work in the United States, and parental or guardian permission to participate if under 18 years of age) was found to be complicated and discouraging for the youth due to long waiting lines and not having access to all of the necessary documents. For example, a supervisor from a CBO stated: The multiple steps for application made it hard for them [the youth] to apply lines for certification was discouraging it is hard for kids. I know it is something they have to do but it is hard for them. In addition, a teacher, who was also an supervisor to a youth participant, that worked in one of the schools that referred youth to the program and helped youth apply for the DC SYEP stated: The only thing that was hard was tracking down kids to make sure they had everything in. It is hard because a lot of the kids could not find their stuff like birth certificates, etc. Another supervisor who is a teacher at a school stated: What was hard was supporting the kids to have all of their stuff for their application it was hard to have the time to help the kids. I took a few kids to enrollment events11 but even that took a lot of time kids did not have a lot of stuff kids do not know how to do this stuff and it comes down on the teachers to help.
11
http://www.does.dc.gov/does/frames.asp?doc=/does/lib/does/frames/SYEP_Certification_Schedule_2012_UPDA TE_3.9.12.pdf
41
Unlike the supervisors who felt that the deadlines and information were transparent, youth had issues around communication of deadlines. A youth who did not participate in the program stated: I wanted to be in the program, I heard about the application process late and the deadline was too short. Furthermore, there was an issue around the communication of dates and the adequate and comparable recruitment methods via schools. A youth who did not participate stated: When I went down to the counselors office to talk to her about [the DC] SYEP, she gives me my application, mind you, its April, she knows that the deadline is up. I did my application, and when I finally give it back to her, shes all like oh wait, the deadline is over, you cant get this job, because no one really informed us. Another youth participant, who was new to applying for the program, had a different experience. This youths experience demonstrates that the issues may have been school specific. This youth stated: I applied at my school, and my school gets out right at 3:30, but they told us we could do it at the school library at 3:15 when the application came on the Internet and everybody went to the library and started applying. Why, because I knew there was a job cut [limited spaces], and you had to do it fast [apply early] in order to get a job. This youth knew about the limited spaces available in the program in addition to the importance of registering early per the schools instructions to have the youth complete the application once
42
it was launched. Not all students had this similar experience which shows a difference in the communication received via the schools around the application process of the DC SYEP. Another youth, who did not participate in the program, stated: Even though they gave the notifications to the schools, it was left up to the schools to whether or not they would get the message out and whether the schools didnt have time to, or forgot about it or something, the kids just wouldnt know. Lastly, one supervisor from the CBO who was returning to the DC SYEP stated: The biggest obstacle of the program was getting the word out to the parents and getting the youth registered there was a lot of confusion between the original start date and when registration [was] to end or ended. They were also confused on how to get the student assigned to our specific site. We only take our specific kids in our program. Program Implementation Preparedness for Employment Youth enrolled in the DC SYEP were required to participate in an in-person orientation hosted at DOES that went over program details including logistics, rules, and expectations. In addition, there was a supplemental online orientation through the SYEP Youth Portal available prior to the start of the program. The orientation consists of a series of short videos addressing specific SYEP content questions. Also, during the first week, youth were supposed to have received an orientation at their worksite by their supervisors. Over 85 percent of the youth stated they received an orientation to the work site and supervisors stated they had given a job orientation. Among students who received a workplace
43
orientation, most of them recalled that the orientation consisted of a tour, introduction to other staff members, an overview of job responsibilities, an overview of the schedule, and an explanation of the dress code. However, dress code was a major challenge for the youth, as expressed by supervisors. One supervisor from a district agency stated: Work place attire was a challenge. Some of the youth had to be pulled aside. Another supervisor from a school stated there was a need for a formal dress code, due to the issues around attire: I continued to tell them [about dress issues] and even provided them with a dress code and emphasized [its] importance. Males continued to dress inappropriately. Dress code should be standard. Everyone should have some sort of uniform; it prepares them for the real world. In addition, both supervisors and youth felt that parents needed to be involved in helping the youth prepare for the job. One youth returning to DC SYEP from the prior summer stated: I think it would be good to have communication to give my parents, having information sessions would be good for them A supervisor from a DC agency stated: Get parents involved, they should be there at orientation so they know what is expected so they can properly equip their child. Quality of Supervisors Overall, it was found that quality programming, which includes positive interaction and engaging youth, relied on the supervisors and their understanding of the overall program goals set for the youth by DOES. Those goals, provided to the supervisors at the supervisor orientation, included providing a meaningful work experience and guiding the youth
44
participants to develop employability skills as well as expectations of being a worker. One supervisor summed this up by stating: If someone is an SYEP supervisor but not having an interest in the kids, it is not worth it. The youth are youth and some of the youth are raising themselves we understand that we have been fortunate that we have a great [work site] staff and people here [at the organization/agency] who are willing and patient to work with them. In addition, one supervisor new to the DC SYEP stated: You not only have to have management experience but also know how to give back to students to help them grow. You have to definitely be patient. I think one thing that is very helpful is to understand the demographics of the young people, knowing where they are coming from you might have certain expectations but you cant expect a student to just come in a mold to your work. Another youth stated: Its not just DOES, its us as well. Our managers didnt provide enough structured work for the students. They didnt always see them as real employees. Furthermore, supervisors expressed the desire to be trained in working with youth. One supervisor, from the private sector, returning another summer to participate in the program stated: CYITC was an excellent partnership of SYEP because they showed us the whole purpose of SYEP. We saw [through the training] how it was to give work
45
experience and thats a process of youth development and how to get these kids interested in learning about working. Another supervisor who participated in a previous summer stated: I think [the Advancing Youth Development] AYD training needs to happen all across the board. There are a lot of people that need those skills. The last thing I would say is that you have to be able to work with kids and not everyone can do that if you are not prepared to deal with kids it can be difficult. Support for Supervisors With regards to support, supervisors stated that their questions were answered in a timely manner by SYEP staff and all of the seventeen supervisors interviewed expressed how helpful and supportive the SYEP staff was. One supervisor new to the summer employment program stated: Interaction between my liaison and I was great they were very proactive, sent emails, constant contact, that was the biggest strengths of the program. In addition, another supervisor stated: Communication with the program staff was excellent. They were right on everything. Lastly, a supervisor from a DC agency, stated: I think that SYEP did a great job this summer and I hope that we can keep the same employees next year I think having the relationship with my SYEP liaison was good and I hope we can have the same one next year.
46
Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction Overall, supervisors were satisfied with the program. In both the focus groups and interviews, supervisors discussed the value of the program for the youth. For example, a supervisor from one of the local CBOs stated: I think you all are doing a great job, I am impressed. You are certainly doing a great service to the city, and you are making a huge impact in the lives in youth. I think the payoff will be great. In addition, youth in all of the focus groups expressed satisfaction with the program and many of them stated they would want to return next year. Also, a majority of the returning supervisors believed that the program has made improvements from the prior year, as stated by this supervisor: I think that they were definitely trying to improve things there were definitely things that really make a good effective program. Specific improvements discussed specifically in the interviews included better process of selecting youth for placements at their worksites and better communication around program dates and announcements. For example, one supervisor from a CBO stated: The program communication was great this year interaction with my SYEP liaison [at DOES] was very helpful, very proactive, sent emails, constant contact that was the biggest improvement of the program this year. Job Selection Satisfaction Supervisors in the interviews expressed an improvement this year in the process of identifying and requesting youth they wanted to work at their site. For example, a supervisor
47
from a CBO and a supervisor from a DC agency stated: It was a great improvement from last year and it really helps us to be able to identify certain kids that are interested in working for our organization and to be actually be [sic] able to interview the kids and receive the kids we choose. It should be noted that an area of challenge expressed around the hiring process was the concern that the youth needed to also be engaged during this placement process such as responding to interview requests and emails sent from prospective worksites. For example, one supervisor stated: The quality of the youth the screening process was a lot better but we need to help youth to realize that they have to be serious and if they dont follow suit they could lose their employment. They need to engage in the process with us. In addition, seven youth expressed that they do in fact like to be able to choose their job placements based on their interests. For example, one youth stated: They should ask us, which they do, our interests and maybe what we want to focus on. Like say somebody wants to be a lawyer, they can work at a law firm part time, or, me I want to do news broadcasting so I would want to be in that office, you know, something like that. Its a big difference. Another youth expressed how choosing job placements are related to actual job skills that they want to learn and how the placement would help them learn these skills. This youth stated: Some people in SYEP, they work at a recreation center, or a school, some were at an actual office. And you learn different things depending where you are.
48
Depending on what type of person you are, what type of skills, or what you want to get from this, where your job is at is important. Youth Outcomes Job Readiness and Work Skills With regards to future employment skills, youth reported having gained more of an understanding of career interests and qualifications for future careers. For example, one youth stated: I liked it [the job] and what it teaches you, you know, work ethics and communication skills, meeting people, what you need to do to prepare for this type of career. Supervisors reported that the youth learned a good work ethic and were introduced to a professional atmosphere. In addition, the youth learned leadership skills and working in teams. For example, one supervisor from a DC agency stated: The youth gained the soft skills calling into work, contacting your supervisor, showing up on time, communicating with their supervisor. When the supervisors were asked about an overall assessment of the youth with which they worked, the supervisors reported that most youth accomplished some specific employability skills. The supervisors were asked specifically about the performance indicators such as arriving to work on time, following instructions, accepting constructive criticism, working well with others, and behaving in a professional manner. In an interview, one supervisor specifically noted:
49
I think they achieved the main goals of having a job getting the soft skills, calling into work, contacting their supervisor, showing up on time, communicating with their supervisor. Future Goals Many supervisors expressed in the interviews or focus groups the desire to evaluate the youth on an ongoing basis. For example, an ongoing database might be developed to keep track of youths progress from year to year. As one supervisor stated: It would be great to be able to keep track of each individual in the program and how long they have been in the program. In addition, it would be great to have annual evaluations of the youth and even be able to put recommendations in their files. In addition, supervisors in interviews/focus groups felt that the youth gained confidence and self-worth that will help them with future employment. One supervisor felt that the SYEP empowered them [the youth] to know that they can be responsible and succeed in the future. However, there were concerns about what the youth would do after the DC SYEP ended, with seven supervisors from the interviews making comments such as: What happens when the kids go back on home after the summer? Another supervisor stated: Some were raising themselves, they did not have parental support and they had no structure to help them or guide them. Very often the parents had to work hours when they [the youth] were home. There were a couple of pregnancies. A few had
50
to go back to school early. What happens after the summer when they do not have our support? V. Discussion
Summary of Findings Learning Opportunities (Research Question 1) Overall the findings show that 95 percent of youth surveyed stated that they were in fact provided learning opportunities geared towards employability skills and mastery and future orientation as measured through the youth post survey. Specifically youth were asked to respond to the question What job skills did you think you learned through participating in SYEP? Select all that apply. Further analysis showed that the top three skills learned were being responsible, reporting to work on time, and dressing appropriately for work. The two least learned skills were financial management skills and computer skills (See Table 6). Satisfaction with SYEP (Research Question 2) Overall, 69 percent of youth stated that they were satisfied with the program. Furthermore, 96 percent of supervisors stated they were somewhat or very satisfied with the programming and have recognized the improvements that SYEP has made over the past years. The focus groups and interviews revealed improvements from last year and recommendations for the following years. The findings from the focus groups/interviews/both indicated that despite the positive survey findings, continued improvements can still be made. Specifically, supervisors indicated that changes could be made at the youth application process, such as having more intentional outreach conducted to reach youth, including out-of-school youth, that do not have access to venues for communication about the program. Additional outreach to these youth about the program could come through youth serving centers such as
51
recreation centers, public libraries, and in neighborhood community centers. In addition, more assistance is needed to help youth navigate the eligibility stage of the application process such as what the documents look like that they should bring in and what to do if they did not have access to the documents. Furthermore, it was found thatsupervisors were satisfied with the option to select the youth with which they wanted to work, and the youth satisfied with being able to select areas of interest and specific placements with which they wanted to work. However, youth did state they wanted more descriptions of the different job types and opportunities to make sure they chose job placements that were of their interests. Short-Term Impact (Research Question 3) With respect to employability, there was a decrease in the crude mean score between the pre and post participation surveys. This could be due to the fact that the youth felt they had the skills prior to the program, however when practicing the skills, they in fact realized they had not mastered it. Further analysis revealed that higher grade level and prior participation were associated with positive changes in employability skills. This could be due to the fact that youth in higher grades as well as those who have participated in past summers learned the skills over time and now feel that they have mastered them. However these findings need to be taken with consideration due to the fact that the data used to calculate the pre survey and post survey changes were based on different respondent groups (as discussed in the limitations section). The qualitative findings revealed that youth felt they did learn job readiness and work skills from the program, which contradicts the decrease in scores on the post survey. Additionally, supervisors on average felt that youth did learn skills, felt the program does have a positive effect on youth outcomes, and that the program empowers youth. However,
52
there was a perception that the effect on youth behavior could vary with the quality of the placement sites and the supervisors knowledge of working with youth. Supervisors and youth stated in focus groups and interviews that they felt that some sites were of better quality which could have led to better outcomes for the youth at those sites. Qualitative findings also revealed that some skills were not as well learned as others; appropriate work attire was still an issue with many of the youth as stated by the supervisors. With respect to mastery and future orientation, there was an increase in crude mean scores between the pre and post surveys. In addition, older age predicted greater mastery and future orientation. This could be due to the fact that older the youth have more experience and knowledge of different careers which could help guide their future goals. In the survey results, the youth and supervisor findings revealed that the youth did gain a sense of self-worth in addition to learning about future careers. Recommendations Key recommendations are offered to strengthen the DC SYEP. In addition, other youth development programs focused on career development may find use of these recommendation so help guide their programming. Overall, recommendations include: collaboration among DC agencies and partners, quality around host work sites and supplemental activities, continual data collection improvements, and diversity in participants. These recommendations were guided by the findings and additional discussions in the focus groups and interviews with youth and supervisor. SYEP Recommendations Quality Programming and Supervisors The DC SYEP has begun to incorporate activities that are age and developmentally
53
appropriate in an environment that engages the youth. For example, in order to continue to build on this, it is important that the youth are in quality sites and being engaged positively. For example, host work sites should undergo site visits with regards to programming to ensure they are providing positive programming. In addition, host work sites should demonstrate how learning opportunities exists there during their application process. Lastly, during the application process, supervisors should discuss how they plan to assist the youth in reaching the short-term outcomes. It is necessary that supervisors have the proper training in working with youth. Although supervisors have the potential of being a key mentor in the lives of the youth they are supervising, few supervisors receive youth development training, leaving them unprepared to help teens make the most of their early work experiences (Public/Private Ventures (PPV), 2005). As stated by PPV (2005), a job becomes a good developmental opportunity only when teens receive support and guidance from adults at work. Because this is essentially a youth development program in conjunction with a workforce development program, supervisors need to be trained in both aspects which is possible with the partnership DOES has with CYITC. It is recommended that all supervisors undergo the Advancing Youth Development (AYD) training12 that is customized for the workforce development programs for the youth. This can be provided by the CYITC. It should be noted that although this was the intention of SYEP for 2011, through the qualitative findings it was found that not all supervisors in fact participated in the trainings. In addition to the training, helping supervisors develop the mentoring and implementation skills is important to build quality and sustainable learning for the youth. Also,
12
http://nti.aed.org/Curriculum.html
54
further guidance should be provided to the supervisors on skills and objectives that the youth should meet throughout the summer including budgeting skills, work skills, and social skills. This will help provide youth with more meaningful experience outside of just learning work skills. These trainings can be accessed via a partnership with CYITC. Job Placements Work placements should continue to be based on each youths interests, education, and career goals. More job descriptions should be provided to the youth including example future careers in the respective field, sample types of job placements, and prior skills needed. However, more intentional job placements should also occur around general interests of the youth. In addition, returning youth should have the opportunity to continue working in a similar placement as the previous summer to gain further experience in their interests. However, returning youth should also be given information on the types of placements available to continue to learn about different careers and in the case that they want to change their placement. It is important that youth learn about different careers as it has been found that jobs that youth find boring and unchallenging in nature create negative attitudes toward work and acceptance of unethical practices (Mael, Morath and McLellan, 1997). For new and returning youth, mandatory workshops before being placed at a host work site could be conducted, where participants can learn about the goals of SYEP, the different jobs opportunities available to them and what is expected of them, and work site rules and responsibilities. These workshops could continue monthly with the help of the host work site and include topics like college planning, life skills, and leadership skills. Improve Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts The DC SYEP has made begun this process by engaging in a pilot evaluation of their
55
programs. However, for continued program improvement, it is necessary to continue working towards rigorous and comprehensive evaluation. One major recommendation to strengthen future findings is linking the pre and post participation surveys to the youth applications in order to ensure the same youth complete both. Therefore, the youth would need to complete the pre survey at the appropriate time (prior to program participation) and at completion of the program. This would increase response rate as the link is given at the application time while they are at a computer completing the application. In addition, by having them log back into their account at the end, this would also allow for the youth to have some type of closure to their participation in the program as they would be logging into their account and via the survey for self-reflection of their participation in the program. In addition, it is important that all stakeholders are engaged in the evaluation process, from the youth, providers, funders and policymakers. It is recommended that DOES work with these youth, funders, proviers, and policymakers to come up with common goals of the evaluation and engage them in the process. This would increase buy-in from all parties for the evaluation, which will strengthen the methods and therefore findings. For example, it would help the youth understand the importance of completing the surveys which in turn could increase the response rates while engaging them in the planning and implementation process. In addition, it would help policymakers understand why specific outcomes are being measured and allow for their input of other outcomes they would like measured. Another recommendation around data collection is to implement a quasi-experimental study design. The DC SYEP has a high number of youth applying to the program but only has openings for about half of these applicants. This provides an ample amount of youth to use the waitlist group as a comparative group. In addition, it is feasible as the youth can complete the
56
pre survey at the tume of application and be sent a reminder email through the youth portal to complete the post participation survey. By conducting a quasi-experimental design, the findings on youth outcomes can be strengthened as it will eliminate external threats to validity. General Recommendations Supplemental Activities It has been found that a range of services are necessary for positive results with youth, such as the combination of early work experience with job training, the inclusion of remedial education in the array of educational and vocational services, and the combination of selfdirected job search strategies and a job placement program (HGSE, 2011). As the DC SYEP is working with youth who are developing and learning skills to help navigate their transition into adulthood, program elements should be supplemented by other program activities, including career portfolio development, money management, career and educational exposure events, and youth leadership development. The DC SYEP is an excellent avenue to provide youth with the necessary supplemental activities. The program attracts a high number of the youth population that traditionally lacks resources (as noted, the application process over 41% of youth are being reached). It is recommended that as early as during or after the web-based application youth are referred to external sites or services of their interests or needs around health, education, or extracurricular activities. This can help the youth become engaged with additional social and educational services that could increase their experience with not only the DC SYEP and later in life. In addition, the DC SYEP should continue to partner with schools to assist with the application process, however make a concerted/conscious effort to provide support to
57
underresourced schools to make sure the youth that attend those schools are receiving information. Year Round Opportunities Youth engaging in the DC SYEP have adult support for the time that they are in the program during the summer; however, this support is not sustained throughout the school year. This program is an excellent avenue to help youth engage in mentoring opportunities, especially with individuals who share similar interests around careers, such as their supervisors or older/mature adults who have retired from these careers. These mentors would serve as a professional role model and assist with not only setting career goals but help with school course selection and the college application process. Overall this could help reinforce the overall longterm outcomes of the DC SYEP as well as keep the youth engaged throughout the year. Collaboration with Other Agencies Greater support is needed to develop citywide goals and strategies in working with youth. The DC SYEP provides one piece of working towards youth development, but a collaboration and increased support with other agencies is needed to help continually serve the youth. This study highlights the effect of the DC SYEP on youth while providing areas where other agencies can collaborate to help youth transition successfully to adulthood. There are multiple agencies in DC that provide, fund, and oversee youth education, training, and employment services (Ross, 2011). However, the different funding streams and performance measures often cause a lack of collaboration and ability for data sharing (Ross, 2011). By collaborating with all of these agencies a strategic plan with regards to youth workforce development can be achieved and involve not only summer programming but ongoing year round opportunities.
58
SYEP has already begun to make efforts to collaborate with some of these agencies, and by continuing these efforts; the program can leverage the resources and opportunities available. For example, working with other agencies such as the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) can streamline recruitment and documentation that they require for programs such as the DC Tuition Assistance Grants, which provides financial assistance to DC youth applying and enrolling in college. The DC SYEP should also reach out to local universities to provide assistance with not only the implementation of the program but also to provide resources and opportunities such as college tours and career fairs. Lastly, research has found that for the way an individual manages their money can affect their future including making money decisions and creating motivation for continuing to save money (Danes and Rettig, 1993). Therefore, youth should be given the assistance on learning the importance of managing money. By reaching out to local banks such as PNC and Bank of America, youth can have the opportunity to not only learn money management skills but also open bank accounts. Expanding Outreach to Reach Opportunity Youth Although the DC SYEP has made progress in diversifying their participants and targeingt youth from areas that lack resources and have higher negative indicators for youth, efforts are needed to continue to recruit youth who are at higher levels of negative risk factors, such as dropping out of school and poverty. In addition, the DC SYEP should continue to make a concerted effort to reach those youth who are disengaged from school, work, or reentering from incarceration, such as youth who have dropped out of high school (referred to as Opportunity Youth). Research has shown that training and education opportunities could help reengage and even reduce the number of opportunity youth. For example, programs could potentially incentivize businesses to work in collaboration with educational providers to
59
establish needs, and develop education with training (Americas Promise, 2012). The DC SYEP could utilize their program to provide opportunities to reengage these youth.s. For example, selected job openings could be reserved for these youth, coupled with a GED or credit recovery program to help them achieve self-sufficiency. Study Implications Research Implications A 2009 report by the Wallace Foundation stated that there was a lack of evidence found for youth development outcomes because those outcomes were rarely, if ever, evaluated (Terezen, Anderson and Hamilton, 2009). Further, few studies regarding youth employment have utilized a similar sample without constraining their analysis across races or ethnicities (Johnson, 2004). Moreover, a majority of the studies that have evaluated specifically summer youth employment programs focus on process evaluation and not behavior change in participants. Program administrators are not trained to conduct comprehensive evaluation and use simple research methods to develop quick information about the program and its function. This pilot study of the DC SYEP focused on a large sample of urban youth residing in DC and combines academic research with a practical model for documenting the processes and outcomes of this summer youth employment programs. This allows for both the researcher and the program staff to learn the needs, language, and culture while sharing evidence-based practices of academia and youth development programming. Practice Implications This study provides a framework for understanding the current structure of the DC SYEP and possible implications for future programming. Prior to this study, there were no clear short, medium, or long term objectives of the DC SYEP. In addition, there was no clear visual
60
layout of how the activities of DC SYEP (youth application, youth placement, and youth employment) lead to attainment of these objectives. This study develops and describes the the activities and outputs of the DC SYEP to outcomes of the program. In addition, the study provides recommendations to strengthen program offeringes. Policy Implications This study demonstrates a blending of academia with practice which is needed to help guide future policies. Policymakers are often interested on the return of investment of programs that are being funded. This study attempts to provide information on the youth outcomes and areas that can be strengthened in the program. In addition, as this was the first formal evaluation of the DC SYEP program, findings can help guide future evaluations. For example, a future evaluation might examine the years of participation in the summer program that youth have participated and how this may affect their development in terms of completing high school, continuing in post-secondary education, etc. In addition, further research could be conducted on looking at opportunity youth that have disengaged from school and/or work, and how investment in programs such as the DC SYEP has an effect on the outcomes of these youth. Conclusion The DC SYEP is working towards strengthening programming to maximize youth outcomes. The overall findings show that youth are being provided learning opportunities related to employability and mastery and future orientation. and are satisfied with the program; however, more effort around building a quality program geared towards the goals and specific learning objective of providing meaningful work experiences to youth in the DC are needed. Although there are limitations of the current study, restate, this evaluation is an initial effort for the DC SYEP to describe its implementation of the program and the components that are
61
working and where strengthening the program for the next summer may be achieved. Lastly, this study provides guidance to the implementation and evaluation of national summer youth employment programs. It should be noted that evaluations of the program should be modified for city-specific goals and ensure the tools used are measuring the intended outcomes.
62
References Allen, M. (2006). A formative program evaluation of Bridgepoints great expectations. Louisville, KY: Spalding University. Americas Promise Alliance. (2011). Americas Promise: Parent engagement. Washington, DC: Americas Promise Alliance. Accessed 15 March 2011. http://www.americaspromise.org/Resources/ParentEngagement.aspx. Americas Promise Alliance. (2012). The economic value of opportunity youth. Washington, DC: Americas Promise Alliance. Accessed 13 March 2012. http://americaspromise.org/News-and-Events/News-and-Features/APB-2012/Vol2/~/media/Files/News/Econ_Value_Youth_Jan_11_2012.ashx. Annie Casey Foundation.(2011). Kids count online database. Accessed 12 April 2011. http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/KIDSCOUNT.aspx. Bauermeister, J., Zimmerman, M., Gee, G., Caldwell, C. and Zue, Y. (2009). Work and sexual trajectories among African American youth. Journal of Sex Research, 46(4), 290-300. Bernat, D. and Resnick, M. (2006). Healthy youth development: Science and strategies. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 12(6), 10-16. Blagg, R. (2011). A bridge between basic social science and evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 131, 27-30. Cain, M. (1999). Youth and the environment: An evaluation of the Nova Scotia youth conservation corps program. Hailfax, Nova Scotia: Dalhouse University. Cardoza, K. (2011). Summer program cuts will affect thousands of students. Washington, DC: American University. Accessed 10 September 2011. http://wamu.org/news/11/05/26/summer_program_cuts_will_affect_thousands_of_dcps_
63
students.php. Casner-Lotto, J. and Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. New York, NY: The Conference Board, Inc. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Factors that contribute to health disparities. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 15 March 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/disparities/black/factors.htm. Chaplin, D. (1999). Summary of capacity and needs assessments: Youth activities in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Clymer, C., Edwards, K., Ponce, J. and Wyckoff, L. (2002). Supporting youth employment: A guide for community groups. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Curnan, S., Kingley, C., LaCava, L. and Frees, J. (2010). Unfinished work: Building excellence in Washington, DCs summer youth employment program. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University. Danes, S. & Rettig, K. (1993). The role of perception in the intention to change the family financial situation. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 14(4), 365-389. DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation. (2010). Youth development best Practices. Washington, DC: DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation. Accessed 12 April 2011. www.cyitc.org/elements/file/Youth%20Development.pdf. DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation. DC youth needs assessment: Executive summary. Washington, DC: DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation.
64
Accessed 19 February 2012. www.cyitc.org/elements/file/Needs%20Assessment%20Executive%20Summary.pdf. Double the Numbers. (2006). Double the numbers for college success: A call to action for the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: The Bridgespan Group. Accessed 15 March 2011. http://www.doublethenumbersdc.org./images/pdfs/doublingnumber.pdf. Finkelhor, D. and Ormrod, R. (2010). The homicides of children and youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. First Focus. (2010). Childrens budget 2010. Washington, DC: First Focus. Fitz-Gibbon, C. and Morris, L. (1987). How to design a program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Flannery, D., Hussey, D. and Thomas, R. (2009). 2009 Summer youth employment report. Cleveland, OH: Youth Opportunities Unlimited. Accessed 17 April 2012. http://www.youthopportunities.org/images/MyCom%20Summer%202009%20Report.pd f. Greenberger, E. and Steinberg, L. (1986). When teenagers work: The psychological and social costs of adolescent employment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Boston, MA: Pearsons Foundation. Hastings, S., Tsoi, R. and Harris, L. (2010). Building a comprehensive youth employment delivery system: Examples of effective practice. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
65
Healthy People 2020. (2011). 2020 Topics and Objectives: Adolescent Health. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy People. Accessed 17 April 2011. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/default.aspx. Jekielek, S., Cochran, S. and Hair E. (2002). Employment programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Johnson, M. (2004). Further evidence on adolescent employment and substance use: Differences by race and ethnicity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 187-197. Kuehn D. and McDaniel, M. (2009). Vulnerable youth and the transition to adulthood fact sheet: low-income African American youth. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Land, K. (2010). The 2009 foundation for child development child and youth well-being index report. Durham, NC: Duke University. Lawrence, R, Gootman, J. and Sim, L. (2009). Adolescent health services: Missing opportunities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Linnan, L. and Steckler, A. (2002). Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lippman, L. and Keith, J. (2009). A developmental perspective on workplace readiness: Preparing high school students for success. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Mael, F., Morath, R. and McLellan, J. (1997). Dimensions of adolescent employment. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 351-367. Martinson, K. (2010). Partnering with employers to promote job advancement for low-skill individuals. Washington, DC: The National Institute for Literacy.
66
Matsuba, K., Elder, G., Petrucci, F. and Marleau, T. (2008). Employment training for at-risk youth: A program evaluation focusing on changes in psychological well-Being. Child Youth Care Forum, 37(15), 15-26. McClanahan, W., Sipe, C. and Smith, T. (2004). An evaluation of the summer career exploration program. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. McDavid, J. and Hawthorn, L. (2006). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McLaughlin, J. and Sum, A. (2011). The steep decline in teen summer employment in the U.S., 2000-2010 and the bleak outlook for the 2011 summer teen job market. Boston, MA: Center for Labor Market Studies. McNeely, C. and Blanchard J. (2009). The teen years explained: A Guide to healthy adolescent development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Adolescent Health. Mishel, L., Bernstein, J. and Allegretto, S. (2005). The state of working America: 2004/2005. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mortimer, J., Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Holmes, M. and Shanahan, M. (2002). The process of occupational decision-making: Patterns during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 439-465. Mortimer, J. (2003). Working and growing up in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67
National Recreation and Park Association. (2010). The key benefits: Synopsis of 2010 research paper. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. Nielsen, N. and McGhee, R. (2005). Ascend summer youth employment program 2005. Washington, DC: SRI International. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Jobs for youth. Poland: Jobs for Youth. Accessed 20 August 2011. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/3/44031073.pdf. . Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children. (2011). The state of youth employment. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children. Accessed 15 March 2011. http://www.psaydn.org/Documents/Employment_fact_sheet.pdf. Public/Private Ventures. (2005). Youth Development: Issues, Challenges, and Directions. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures Ross, M. (2009). Blog: The districts dime: Youth employment programs should focus on quality, not just numbers served. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Ross, M. (2011). Strengthening educational and career pathways for DC youth. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Shanks, T. and McGee, K. (2010). Detroit summer youth employment program: Results of employer and youth employee exit surveys. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Simpkins, S. (2003). Does youth participation in out-of-school time activities make a difference? The Evaluation Exchange, 9(1). Staff, J. and Mortimer, J. (2007). Educational and work strategies from adolescence to early adulthood: Consequences for educational attainment. Social Forces, 86(3), 1169-1194.
68
Sum, A., Khatiwada, I., McLaughlin, J. and Palma, S. (2008). The collapse of the national teen job market and the case for an immediate youth jobs creation program. Boston, MA: Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. Terezen, M., Anderson, M. and Hamilton, K. (2009). Effective and promising summer learning programs and approaches for economically-disadvantaged children and youth. Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation. The Colorado Trust. (2004). After-school initiatives toolkit for evaluating positive youth development. Denver, CO: The Colorado Trust. Thomas, S. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73, 39-67. Urban Alliance Foundation. (2010). Statistics for Washington, DC: Youth Employment and Academic Achievement, Washington, DC: Urban Alliance Foundation. Accessed 15 March 2011. http://www.theurbanalliance.org/about/statistics. US Census Bureau. (2008). Population estimates: National characteristics, national sex, age, race and Hispanic origin. Suitland, MD: US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau. Accessed 20 March 2011. http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NCEST2009-sa.html. . U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). FactFinder: District of Columbia. Suitland, MD: US Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed 20 March 2011. http://factfinder2.census.gov/. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Positive youth development fact sheet. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of
69
Children and Families. Accessed 10 March 2011. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/positiveyouth/factsheet.htm. Weeter, C. and Martin, N. (2011). Building roads to success: Key considerations for communities and states reconnecting youth to education. Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition. Whalen, S., DeCoursey, J. and Skyles, A. (2003). Preparing youth for the workforce: Exploring employer engagement in the Chicago region. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children. Wholey, J., Hetry, H. and Newcomer, K. (2004). Handbook of practical evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, John and Sons. Zuckerman, A. (n.d.). The more things change, the more they stay the same: The evolution of youth employment programs. Washington, DC: National Youth Employment Coalition.
70
Appendices
71
Appendix A: Informed Consent Forms
72
Consent to Participate in the Evaluation Study of the DC SYEP Dear Parent/Guardian, Your child is registered to participate in the DC Department of Employment Services (DOES) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). In order to monitor the effectiveness of SYEP, DOES, the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (The Trust), and the George Washington University (GWU) is conducting an ongoing evaluation study. The evaluation is being conducted to learn how the services and activities benefit students, how the program can be improved, and whether participation in SYEP increases youth development outcomes. Specifically we ask permission from you, as the parent/guardian, for a period of up to seven years, until your childs projected date of hig h school graduation to: Contact your childs school and obtain records showing their progress, including information about enrollment, grades, citywi de test scores, suspensions, and attendance. Talk to employers and SYEP staff about your childs progress and participation in SYEP and review program records on participation in the program. Survey and/or interview you and your child about SYEP and its effects. This is an evaluation of SYEP and is NOT an evaluation of your child. Any information we collect will be used ONLY to assess SYEP and to track general group trends. Individual responses will not be made public. Participating in the evaluation will not affect your child in school, in SYEP, or in any other way. We will not use your name or your child's name in any report. At the end of the evaluation, we will destroy all records that include personal information. There are no foreseen risks or discomforts that your child could experience during this study. Participating in this study poses no risks that are not ordinarily encountered in daily life. We expect that no harm will come to you or your child from participation in this study and it may benefit your child by providing opportunities, supports, and services that may enhance development. Participation in the evaluation study is completely voluntary and participants may withdraw at any time with no consequences. It should be noted that the data collected between June 2011 and December 2011 will be also used as part of a dissertation research study for Nisha Sachdev, a Doctorate of Public Health student at GWU. As noted before, any information we collect will be used ONLY to assess SYEP and to track general group trends. Individual responses will not be made public and participation in the evaluation will not affect your child in school, in SYEP, or in any other way. We will not use your name or your child's name in any report. At the end of the evaluation, we will destroy all records that include personal information. The Office of Human Research of GWU, at telephone number 202-994-2715, can provide further information about your rights as a research participant. Further information regarding this study may be obtained by contacting Nisha Sachdev at 734-358-0151. Please select ONE of the options below and return this form to the program director. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Child Name Last 4 Digits of Social Security Number Child Date of Birth YES, I GIVE PERMISSION FOR MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN BOTH THE EVALUATION AND THE RESEARCH STUDY. I have read the above information and I give permission for my child to participate in the evaluation of SYEP and the data may also be used in the GWU research study. I also consent for SYEP to obtain my child's records, to interview with researchers for program evaluation purposes, and for my child to take related surveys. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date I GIVE PERMISSION FOR MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EVALUATION. I have read the above information and I give permission for my child to participate in the evaluation of SYEP and the data may NOT be used in the GWU research study. I do consent for SYEP to obtain my child's records, to interview with researchers for program evaluation purposes, and for my child to take related surveys. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date NO, I DO NOT WANT MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE. I have read the above information and I DO NOT give permission for my child to participate in the evaluation of SYEP or the GWU Research Study. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date
73
Consent to Participate in the Focus Group of the Evaluation of the DC SYEP Dear Parent/Guardian, Your child is registered to participate in the DC Department of Employment Services (DOES) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). In order to monitor the effectiveness of SYEP, DOES, the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (The Trust), and the George Washington University (GWU) is conducting an ongoing evaluation. The evaluation is being conducted to learn how the services and activities benefit students, how the program can be improved, and whether participation in SYEP increases youth development outcomes. Specifically we ask permission from you, as the parent/guardian to have your child participate in a focus group to gain in depth information about their participation SYEP. The focus groups will be electronically recorded for purpose of transcription. All focus groups and related materials will be kept confidential and upon transcription will be destroyed. If direct quotes are used in publication, your name and/or organization will not be included and any identifying information will be removed from the quote. This is an evaluation of SYEP and is NOT an evaluation of your child. Any information we collect will be used ONLY to assess SYEP and to track general group trends. Individual responses will not be made public. Participating in the evaluation will not affect your child in school, in SYEP, or in any other way. We will not use your name or your child's name in any report. At the end of the evaluation, we will destroy all records that include personal information. There are no foreseen risks or discomforts that your child could experience during this program evaluation. Participating in this program evaluation poses no risks that are not ordinarily encountered in daily life. We expect that no harm will come to you or your child from participation in this program evaluation and it may benefit your child by providing opportunities, supports, and services that may enhance development. Participation in the evaluation is completely voluntary and participants may withdraw at any time with no consequences. It should be noted that the data collected between June 2011 and December 2011 will be also used as part of a dissertation research study for Nisha Sachdev, a Doctorate of Public Health student at GWU. The purpose of this dissertation is to evaluate the effectiveness of SYEP. As noted before, any information we collect will be used ONLY to assess SYEP and to track general group trends. Individual responses will not be made public and participation in the evaluation will not affect your child in school, in SYEP, or in any other way. We will not use your name or your child's name in any report. At the end of the evaluation, we will destroy all records that include personal information. The Office of Human Research of GWU, at telephone number 202-9942715, can provide further information about your rights as a research participant. Further information regarding this study may be obtained by contacting Nisha Sachdev at 734-358-0151. Please select ONE of the options below and return this form to the program director. Thank you. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Child Name Last 4 Digits of Social Security Number Child Date of Birth YES, I GIVE PERMISSION FOR MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN BOTH THE EVALUATION AND THE RESEARCH STUDY. I have read the above information and I give permission for my child to participate in the evaluation of SYEP and the data may also be used in the GWU research study. I also consent for SYEP to obtain my child's records, to focus group with researchers for program evaluation purposes, and for my child to take related surveys. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date I GIVE PERMISSION FOR MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EVALUATION. I have read the above information and I give permission for my child to participate in the evaluation of SYEP and the data may NOT be used in the GWU research study. I do consent for SYEP to obtain my child's records, to focus group with researchers for program evaluation purposes, and for my child to take related surveys. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date NO, I DO NOT WANT MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE. I have read the above information and I DO NOT give permission for my child to participate in the evaluation of SYEP or the GWU Research Study. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Date
74
Appendix B: Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey
75
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey
Survey Invitation Email Hello! The Department of Employment Services has partnered with the George Washington University and the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation to evaluate the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). CLICK ON LINK TO TAKE SURVEY (or copy and paste it in your web browser): https://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CPSA5E672 This survey will tell us about the effect SYEP can have on youth. The information you give will be used to develop better programming. All the answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Make sure to read every question. Answer the questions based on what you really feel. Whether or not you answer the questions will not affect your participation in the program. If you are not comfortable answering a question, just leave it blank. The questions that ask about your background will be used only to describe the students completing this survey. The information will not be used to find out your name, in fact, no names will ever be reported. Please note: completing the survey is voluntary. Thank you very much for your help! For more information or questions contact: Nisha Sachdev at nasachde@gwu.edu
Survey Reminder Email Hello SYEP Participant, Two weeks ago you were sent an email about an evaluation study. If you have not done so, please click on the link below to complete the survey about your experience with SYEP and also other outcomes. This survey is to tell us about the effect that SYEP program can have on youth as well as your experience and reflections on participating in the program. The information you give will be used to develop better programming to help meet your needs as well as the needs of the youth. The answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Completing the survey is voluntary and results are anonymous, therefore please be sure NOT to write your name or organization on any page. The survey can be accessed at this link: https://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CPSA5E672 Thank you!
76
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey Evaluation of the DC Summer Youth Employment Program Informed Consent Form You are invited to participate in a program evaluation of the Department of Employment Services (DOES) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). Taking part in this evaluation is entirely voluntary. The status of your employment will not, in any way, be affected should you choose not to participate or if you decide to withdraw from the study at any time. The purpose of this study is to monitor the effectiveness of SYEP and ensure the future success of the program. If you choose to take part in this study, you will be asked questions about your experiences with SYEP, your views on certain issues, and personal reflections. The questions asked will be about demographics, attitudes towards risk behaviors, academic characteristics, and employability skills. The total amount of time you will spend in connection with this study is between 30 and 45 minutes. You may refuse to answer any of the questions and you may stop your participation in this study at any time. In addition, if you are a DC Public School (DCPS) student choosing to participate in this study, your academic records will be requested from DCPS to show your progress, including information about enrollment, grades, citywide test scores, suspensions, and attendance. This information will not affect your status in school or your grades. There are no unusual risks or discomforts you could experience during this study. Participating in this study poses no risks that are not ordinarily encountered in daily life. You may feel some emotional stress/discomfort answering the survey questions. You are free to skip any questions or stop taking the survey at any point. You will not benefit directly from your participation in the study. The benefits to science and humankind that might result from this study are: to provide DOES with information about participant s experiences and the overall effectiveness of SYEP. In addition, it will provide other programs with information on the effects of overall summer youth employment programs. The Office of Human Research of George Washington University, at telephone number (202) 994-2715, can provide further information about your rights as a research participant (IRB #061125). Further information regarding this study may be obtained by contacting Nisha Sachdev at 734-358-0151. The principal investigator (Karen McDonnell, Ph.D.) can be reached at 202-994-6823. To ensure anonymity, your signature is not required in this document. Your willingness to participate in this research study is implied if you proceed with completing the survey. You will be emailed a copy of this in a document in case you want to read it again. There are about 68 questions and the survey will take about 15 minutes. Please click on the SUBMIT button at the bottom of each page. Eligibility Questions Pick one: A. I consent to being a part of BOTH the dissertation study and the program evaluation. B. I consent to being a part of only the program evaluation. Are you at least 18 years old? A. Yes B. No [Skip to Screen Out] Are you at least 18 years old? A. Yes B. No [Received Parental Consent Questions] Do you live in DC? A. Yes B. No [Skip to Screen Out]
77
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey Did you have your parent/guardian check YES and sign a consent form like the one below AND you gave it to your supervisor or SYEP staff? A. Yes B. No [Skip to Screen Out] Are you a participant in the DC Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) for the summer of 2011? A. Yes B. No [Skip to Screen Out]
78
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey This survey will help tell us about the effect that SYEP program can have on youth. The information you give will be used to develop better programming to help meet your needs. The answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Answer the questions based on what you really feel. Completing the survey is voluntary. Whether or not you answer the questions will not affect your participation in the program. If you are not comfortable answering a question, just leave it blank. The questions that ask about your background will be used only to describe the types of youth completing this survey. The information will not be used to find out your name. No names will ever be reported - please be sure NOT to write your name on any page. Make sure to read every question. Thank you very much for your help!!! There are about 68 questions and the survey will take about 15 minutes. Please click on the SUBMIT button at the bottom of each page. Demographics: This section will ask you about characteristics about you and your family. What is the first letter of your LAST NAME? A. A B. B C. C D. D E. E F. F G. G H. H I. I J. J K. K L. L M. M N. N O. O P. P Q. Q R. R S. S T. T U. U V. V W. W X. X Y. Y Z. Z What are the last four digits of your social security number? If you do not know this, please write I dont know. _______________________________
79
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey What month were you born? A. January B. February C. March D. April E. May F. June G. July H. August I. September J. October K. November L. December What day were you born? A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 E. 5 F. 6 G. 7 H. 8 I. 9 J. 10 K. 11 L. 12 M. 13 N. 14 O. 15 P. 16 Q. 17 R. 18 S. 19 T. 20 U. 21 V. 22 W. 23 X. 24 Y. 25 Z. 26 AA. 27 BB. 28 CC. 29 DD. 30 EE. 31
80
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey What year were you born? A. 1986 B. 1987 C. 1988 D. 1989 E. 1990 F. 1991 G. 1992 H. 1993 I. 1994 J. 1995 K. 1996 L. 1997 M. 1998 N. 1999 O. 2000 P. 2001 What is the highest grade you have completed? A. 6th grade B. 7th grade C. 8th grade D. 9th grade E. 10th grade F. 11th grade G. 12th grade H. Freshman in college I. Sophomore in college J. Junior in college K. Senior in college L. Graduated from high school or got GED but not in college M. Graduated from college N. Left college before completing O. I would not like to answer this question What is your sex? A. Female B. Male C. I would not like to answer this question How old are you (in years)? A. 14 years B. 15 years C. 16 years D. 17 years E. 18 years F. 19 years G. 20 years H. 21 years I. 22 years J. Over 22 years [Screen Out]
81
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey Who do you live with most of the time? A. Mother B. Father C. Both Mother and Father D. Neither Mother or Father How many people (including you) live in your household? A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 E. 5 F. 6 G. 7 H. 8 or more What ward do you live in? A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 E. 5 F. 6 G. 7 H. 8 I. Dont Know What is the highest level of education completed by your mother? A. Middle School or Junior High School B. High School C. Some College D. College or Above E. Dont Know What is the highest level of education completed by your father? A. Middle School or Junior High School B. High School C. Some College D. College or Above E. Dont Know What is the language you use most often at home? A. English B. Spanish C. Other Are one or more of your parents or guardians you are living with working? A. Yes B. No C. Dont Know D. Not Applicable
82
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey What is your race/ethnicity? (Select one or more responses) A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. Asian or Pacific Islander C. Black or African American D. Hispanic or Latino E. White F. Not sure Employment: These questions will ask you about previous participation in SYEP or other jobs. How many summers have you participated in SYEP? A. This is my first summer. B. This is my second summer. C. This is my third summer. D. I have participated in SYEP four or more summers. Was it easy to apply for SYEP this year (2011)? A. Yes B. No What is the name of your worksite (the name of the organization, company, or agency)? _____________ Are you happy with your job placement? A. Yes B. No Do you think that you will learn about careers by participating in SYEP? A. Yes B. No Do you think that you will learn about work skills by participating in SYEP? A. Yes B. No Have you worked for pay in the past? A. No B. Yes, part-time (at least 20 hours/week) C. Yes, full-time (more than 20 hours/week) If yes, what type of paid work did you do in the past? Check all answers that apply. A. Working with a family member B. Food service or retail C. Babysitting and daycare D. Arts E. Office work/administrative assistant F. Community program G. Church program H. Health sector I. Landscaping and outdoor work J. Camp counselor K. Hair and beauty salon L. Tutoring M. Other
83
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey How much do you think the things you may learn in SYEP will help you later in life? A. Help me very much B. Help me a little bit C. Not help me at all Do you feel well-prepared for this job? A. Yes B. No What other activities (if any) are you participating in this summer? A. I am only participating in SYEP B. Working at another job/internship outside of SYEP C. Going to summer school D. Taking college-level courses E. Going to camp or other activities F. Completing volunteer/community service hours G. I do not have plans H. Other What are your goals of this summer experience? Check all answers that apply. A. Gain experience to advance my career B. Gain experience to better understand career options C. Gain experience to advance my studies D. Earn money E. Learn how to be professional in the world of work F. Other Do you feel safe at your job site? A. Always B. Sometimes C. Never What challenges do you feel you might have while participating in SYEP? Check all that apply. A. Paying for transportation B. Paying for lunch C. Interacting with other youth D. Finding child care E. Staying interested in what Im doing F. Conflict with my schedule G. I dont think I will have any challenges Did your supervisor provide an orientation for your job duties? A. Yes B. No If yes, what did your orientation include? Check all answers that apply. A. Gave me a tour of the workplace B. Introduced me to other staff members C. Connected me with other workers that could answer any questions I had D. Talked about job responsibilities E. Discussed my work schedule F. Discussed the dress code G. Trained me on skills I needed to do my job
84
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey Academic Characteristics: These questions will ask you about your experience with school. I am in high school or college currently. A. Yes [Skip to Future Orientation Questions] B. No What kind of grades do you get in school? A. Mostly As B. Mostly Bs C. Mostly Cs D. Mostly Ds E. Mostly Fs Do you like going to school? A. Almost always B. Sometimes C. Never Do you feel that the school and homework you are given is important? A. Almost always B. Sometimes C. Never Does it matter to you if you do well in school? A. Almost always B. Sometimes C. Never Is what you learn in school important to you? A. Almost always B. Sometimes C. Never How interesting are most of your school courses to you? A. Interesting B. Sometimes interesting and sometimes boring C. Always boring Are you doing as well as you would like to in school? A. Yes B. No Future Orientation: These questions will ask you about your future careers. Can you name three careers you are interested in? A. Yes B. No Have you talked to other people about what your career interests are? A. Yes B. No
85
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey Do you think about jobs or careers that you might be good at? A. Yes B. No Have you ever written a cover letter? A. Yes B. No Have you ever written a resume? A. Yes B. No Do you know what your strengths are in the workplace? A. Yes B. No How likely is it that you will attend and graduate from college? A. Very likely B. Somewhat likely C. Not at all likely D. I am in college right now Do you know what it takes to succeed in a job? A. Yes B. No Do you know what your weaknesses are in the workplace? A. Yes B. No How energetic and healthy do you feel right now? A. Very healthy B. Somewhat healthy C. Not healthy at all What are your future school plans? (Check up to two that apply) A. I have no plans to finish high school or get a GED B. I plan to finish high school or get a GED C. I plan to work after high school and not go to college D. I plan to complete a job training program (for example: electrician, plumber, hairstylist) E. I plan to graduate from college F. I already graduated from a college G. I plan to join the army H. None of the above How satisfied are you with your life right now? A. Not satisfied at all B. Somewhat satisfied C. Very satisfied
86
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey How much stress or pressure is in your life right now? A. A lot of stress B. Some stress C. No stress at all How optimistic are you about your future? A. The future looks very bad B. The future looks ok C. The future looks great Work Attitudes: The following questions ask about your things that might happen at work. Do you feel it would be okay to take off a few days from work without telling your Worksite Supervisor? A. Yes B. No Did you arrive to work on time today? A. Yes B. No C. I did not go to work today. Do you feel like you have to call your supervisor if you are going to be just a few minutes late? A. Yes B. No Do you think it is important to have a clean and neat appearance at work? A. Yes B. No Do you think it is okay to wear a cap or scarf to work if your hair doesn t look good? A. Yes B. No Do you think that there are rules you are expected to follow at your worksite? A. Yes B. No Do you think you should ask questions or for help at work if you do not understand what you are supposed to do? A. Yes B. No Do you think you should complete tasks neatly and to the best of your ability, even if you do not feel like it? A. Yes B. No Do you think if you do a good job then your boss wont have to supervise you all of the time? A. Yes B. No Do you think it is important to have a positive attitude at work? A. Yes B. No
87
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey Do you think if you did something the wrong way at work, it is okay to blame other workers? A. Yes B. No Self-Expression: These statements and questions ask about your feelings about yourself. This section also asks some other personal questions. Remember, your answers are confidential. This means your answers will stay secret. Please answer the following statements and respond: 1. Always 2. Sometimes 3. Never I am good at telling others my ideas and feelings. I am good at listening to other people. I work well with others on a team. I make good decisions. I am good at setting goals. I am important in my community. I am a good leader. I am good at solving problems. I care about other people. I am good at taking care of problems without violence or fighting. I feel like I have at least one adult that supports me. I stand up for what I believe in. I am interested in the community and world problems. I feel I have do not have control over things that happen to me. Risk Behavior Attitudes and Awareness: These questions ask about your experiences in other parts of your life. It asks some other personal questions. Remember, your answers are confidential. This means your answers will stay secret. For the next group of questions respond: 1. 1 friend 2. 2 friends 3. 3 friends 4. 4 or more friends 5. Dont know 6. None of my friends In the past year (12 months), how many of your closest friends have: Used marijuana when their parents didnt know about it? Tried beer, wine or other liquor when their parents didn t know about it? Used LSD, cocaine, amphetamines, or other illegal drugs? Been suspended from school? Dropped out of school? Been arrested? Carried a handgun? Sold illegal drugs?
88
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Pre Survey For the following questions, respond whether you feel like the statements are: 1. True 2. False Drinking is bad for me. Using LSD, cocaine, amphetamines, or other illegal drugs is bad for me. It is ok to get suspended from school for fighting. It is ok to carry a handgun to protect myself. It is bad to sell illegal drugs. It is ok to get arrested for doing something illegal. It is ok to drop out of school. It is ok to beat up people if they start the fight. It is bad to take something without asking if you can get away with it. It is important to be honest with someone, even if they become upset or you get punished. How honest were you in filling out this survey? A. I was honest all of the time. B. I was honest some of the time. C. I was not honest at all. Thank you so much for completing the pre-survey. You will be contacted again at the end of the summer to complete a post-survey!!!! Have a great summer!!!!
89
Appendix C: DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey
90
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey
Survey Invitation Email Hello! The Department of Employment Services has partnered with the George Washington University and the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation to evaluate Mayor Vincent C. Grays One City Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). CLICK ON LINK TO TAKE SURVEY (or copy and paste it in your web browser): https://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CVAVGRYPH This survey will tell us about the effect SYEP can have on youth. The information you give will be used to develop better programming. All the answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Make sure to read every question. Answer the questions based on what you really feel. Whether or not you answer the questions will not affect your participation in the program. If you are not comfortable answering a question, just leave it blank. The questions that ask about your background will be used only to describe the students completing this survey. The information will not be used to find out your name, in fact, no names will ever be reported. Please note: completing the survey is voluntary. Thank you very much for your help!
Survey Reminder Email Hello SYEP 2011 Participant: Several weeks ago, you were sent an email about an evaluation study related to Mayor Vincent C. Grays One City Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). If you have not done so already, please click on the following link to complete a survey about your experience with SYEP and also other outcomes: https://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CVAVGRYPH This survey is designed to help us learn more about the effects that the SYEP may have on its youth participants as a whole and also provides us with insight into your specific experience as a participating youth in the program. The information you provide will be used to help improve the program to better meet your needs as well as the needs of the employers who participate in the SYEP. The answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Completing the survey is voluntary and results are anonymous, therefore please be sure NOT to write your name on any page. Once again, the survey can be accessed at the following link: https://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CVAVGRYPH Thank you!
91
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey Evaluation of the DC Summer Youth Employment Program Informed Consent Form You are invited to participate in a program evaluation of the Department of Employment Services (DOES) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). Taking part in this evaluation is entirely voluntary. The status of your employment will not, in any way, be affected should you choose not to participate or if you decide to withdraw from the study at any time. The purpose of this study is to monitor the effectiveness of SYEP and ensure the future success of the program. If you choose to take part in this study, you will be asked questions about your experiences with SYEP, your views on certain issues, and personal reflections. The questions asked will be about demographics, attitudes towards risk behaviors, academic characteristics, and employability skills. The total amount of time you will spend in connection with this study is between 30 and 45 minutes. You may refuse to answer any of the questions and you may stop your participation in this study at any time. In addition, if you are a DC Public School (DCPS) student choosing to participate in this study, your academic records will be requested from DCPS to show your progress, including information about enrollment, grades, citywide test scores, suspensions, and attendance. This information will not affect your status in school or your grades. There are no unusual risks or discomforts you could experience during this study. Participating in this study poses no risks that are not ordinarily encountered in daily life. You may feel some emotional stress/discomfort answering the survey questions. You are free to skip any questions or stop taking the survey at any point. You will not benefit directly from your participation in the study. The benefits to science and humankind that might result from this study are: to provide DOES with information about participant s experiences and the overall effectiveness of SYEP. In addition, it will provide other programs with information on the effects of overall summer youth employment programs. The Office of Human Research of George Washington University, at telephone number (202) 994-2715, can provide further information about your rights as a research participant (IRB #061125). Further information regarding this study may be obtained by contacting Nisha Sachdev at 734-358-0151. The principal investigator (Karen McDonnell, Ph.D.) can be reached at 202-994-6823. To ensure anonymity, your signature is not required in this document. Your willingness to participate in this research study is implied if you proceed with completing the survey. You will be emailed a copy of this in a document in case you want to read it again. There are about 68 questions and the survey will take about 15 minutes. Please click on the SUBMIT button at the bottom of each page. Eligibility Questions Pick one: A. I consent to being a part of BOTH the dissertation study and the program evaluation. B. I consent to being a part of only the program evaluation. Are you at least 18 years old? A. Yes B. No [Skip to Screen Out] Are you at least 18 years old? A. Yes B. No [Received Parental Consent Questions] Do you live in DC? A. Yes B. No [Screen Out] DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey
92
Did you have your parent/guardian check YES and sign a consent form like the one below AND you gave it to your supervisor or SYEP staff? A. Yes B. No [Screen Out] Are you a participant in the DC Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) for the summer of 2011? A. Yes B. No [Skip to Screen Out]
93
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey This survey will help tell us about the effect that SYEP program can have on youth. The information you give will be used to develop better programming to help meet your needs. The answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Answer the questions based on what you really feel. Completing the survey is voluntary. Whether or not you answer the questions will not affect your participation in the program. If you are not comfortable answering a question, just leave it blank. The questions that ask about your background will be used only to describe the types of youth completing this survey. The information will not be used to find out your name. No names will ever be reported - please be sure NOT to write your name on any page. Make sure to read every question. Thank you very much for your help!!! There are about 68 questions and the survey will take about 15 minutes. Please click on the SUBMIT button at the bottom of each page. Demographics: This section will ask you about characteristics about you and your family. What is the first letter of your LAST NAME? A. A B. B C. C D. D E. E F. F G. G H. H B. I C. J D. K E. L F. M G. N H. O I. P J. Q K. R L. S M. T N. U O. V P. W Q. X R. Y S. Z What are the last four digits of your social security number? If you do not know this, please write I dont know. _______________________________
94
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey What month were you born? A. January B. February C. March D. April E. May F. June G. July H. August I. September J. October K. November L. December What day were you born? A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 E. 5 F. 6 G. 7 H. 8 I. 9 J. 10 K. 11 L. 12 M. 13 N. 14 O. 15 P. 16 Q. 17 R. 18 S. 19 T. 20 U. 21 V. 22 W. 23 X. 24 Y. 25 Z. 26 AA. 27 BB. 28 CC. 29 DD. 30 EE. 31 What is your sex? A. Female B. Male C. I would not like to answer this question
95
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey What year were you born? A. 1986 B. 1987 C. 1988 D. 1989 E. 1990 F. 1991 G. 1992 H. 1993 I. 1994 J. 1995 K. 1996 L. 1997 M. 1998 N. 1999 O. 2000 P. 2001 What is the highest grade you have completed? A. 6th grade B. 7th grade C. 8th grade D. 9th grade E. 10th grade F. 11th grade G. 12th grade H. Freshman in college I. Sophomore in college J. Junior in college K. Senior in college L. Graduated from high school or got GED but not in college M. Graduated from college N. Left college before completing How old are you (in years)? A. 14 years B. 15 years C. 16 years D. 17 years E. 18 years F. 19 years G. 20 years H. 21 years I. 22 years J. Over 22 years [Skip to Screen Out] Who do you live with most of the time? A. Mother B. Father C. Both Mother and Father D. Neither Mother or Father
96
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey How many people (including you) live in your household? A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 E. 5 F. 6 G. 7 H. 8 or more What ward do you live in? A. 1 B. 2 C. 3 D. 4 E. 5 F. 6 G. 7 H. 8 I. Dont Know How old is your mother? A. 18 to 21 years B. 22 to 25 years C. 26 to 30 years D. 30 to 35 years E. 36 to 40 years F. 40 to 45 years G. 45 to 50 years H. Over 50 years I. I dont know How old is your father? A. 18 to 21 years B. 22 to 25 years C. 26 to 30 years D. 30 to 35 years E. 36 to 40 years F. 40 to 45 years G. 45 to 50 years H. Over 50 years I. I dont know What is the highest level of education completed by your mother? A. Middle School or Junior High School B. High School C. Some College D. College or Above E. Dont Know
97
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey What is the highest level of education completed by your father? A. Middle School or Junior High School B. High School C. Some College D. College or Above E. Dont Know Are one or more of your parents or guardians you are living with working? A. Yes B. No C. Dont Know D. Not Applicable What is your race/ethnicity? (Select one or more responses) A. American Indian or Alaska Native B. Asian or Pacific Islander C. Black or African American D. Hispanic or Latino E. White F. Not sure What is the language you use most often at home? A. English B. Spanish Do you have a son or daughter? A. Yes B. No If yes, how old is your oldest child? A. 0 to 2 years B. 3 to 6 years C. 7 to 10 years D. Over 10 years E. Dont know Employment: These questions will ask you about participation in SYEP and other activities. How many summers have you participated in SYEP? A. This is my first summer. B. This is my second summer. C. This is my third summer. D. This is my fourth summer. E. I have participated in SYEP five or more summers. Was it easy to apply for SYEP this year (2011)? A. Yes B. No What is the name of your worksite (the name of the organization, company, or agency)? _____________
98
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey Were you happy with your job placement? A. Yes B. No What was your summer job with the SYEP? Select up to two answers that apply. A. Worked with a business B. Worked with the government C. Office work D. Mentoring or tutoring E. Community cleanups and improvement F. Research or data collection G. Camp counselor H. Gardening or outdoor maintenance I. Building maintenance J. Daycare K. Academic or educational classes L. Other Do you think you were well-prepared for your summer job? A. Yes B. No Did you feel safe at your job site? A. Always B. Usually C. Never Overall, how satisfied were you with your supervisor? A. Very satisfied B. Somewhat satisfied C. Not satisfied at all Do you think you were well-prepared for your summer job? A. Yes B. No Did you feel safe at your job site? A. Always B. Usually C. Never What challenges do you feel you had while participating in SYEP? Select all that apply. A. Paying for transportation B. Paying for lunch C. Interacting with other youth D. Finding child care E. Staying interested in what Im doing F. Conflict with my schedule G. I had no challenges
99
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey How much do you think the things you may learn in SYEP will help you later in life? A. Help me very much B. Help me a little bit C. Not help me at all Overall, how satisfied were you with your supervisor? A. Very satisfied B. Somewhat satisfied C. Not satisfied at all Did your supervisor provide an orientation for your job duties? A. Yes B. No If yes, what did your orientation include? Select all that apply. A. Gave me a tour of the workplace B. Introduced me to other staff members C. Connected me with other workers that could answer any questions I had D. Talked about job responsibilities E. Discussed my work schedule F. Discussed the dress code G. Trained me on skills I needed to do my job H. Other To what extent have the activities you participated in changed your ideas about your future? A. A lot B. Somewhat C. Not at all If a lot or somewhat, how have your ideas about your future changed this summer? Select all that apply. A. I was thinking about quitting school but now think I can stay in school. B. I can reach a higher level of education. C. I now think I can get a better job. D. I now have more confidence about whatever I do. E. I now plan to do more community service and volunteer work. F. I now think I can provide leadership in my community. G. Other This summer, how often did you feel that you did a good job managing the money you earned? A. Always B. Sometimes C. Never What did you do with most of the money you earned this summer? Select up to two answers that apply. A. Saved it for college B. Saved it for something I really needed C. Spent it on something I really needed D. Gave it to my family E. Used it to pay off money I owed F. Spent it on something I want, but really didnt need G. Spent it on food H. Other
100
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey How did your job placement help you prepare for future employment? Select all that apply. A. Helped me decide what kind of job I like B. Showed me how to search for jobs C. Showed me how to fill out a job application D. Helped me create a resume E. Prepared me for a job interview F. Referred me to potential jobs G. Helped me to understand what qualifications I need for my dream job H. Helped me arrange child care I. Other J. Did not help me prepare for employment What job skills did you think you learned through participating in SYEP? Select all that apply. A. Computer skills B. Problem-solving C. Public speaking D. Accepting supervision E. Financial management skills F. Importance of a career G. Communication skills H. How to be organized I. Reporting to work on time J. Dressing appropriately for work K. Completing assignments on time L. Asking for help when I dont understand an assignment M. Being responsible N. Using numbers O. Other P. I learned nothing from participating in SYEP Have you worked for pay before this summer? A. Yes, part-time (at least 20 hours/week) B. Yes, full-time (more than 20 hours/week) C. No If yes, what type of paid work did you do in the past? Select all that apply. A. Working with a family member B. Trades C. Food service or retail D. Hospitality service E. Babysitting and daycare F. Arts G. Office work/administrative assistant H. Community program I. Church program J. Health sector K. Landscaping and outdoor work L. Camp counselor M. Hair and beauty salon N. Tutoring O. Other
101
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey Outside of SYEP, what other activities (if any) did you participate in this summer? Select all that apply. A. I only participated in SYEP B. Worked at another job/internship outside of SYEP C. Went to summer school for middle school or high school D. Took college-level courses E. Went to camp or other activities F. Volunteer/community service hours G. Played sports H. Hung out with friends I. Traveled J. Babysat K. Other How did the job placement help you academically? Select all that apply. A. Helped me decide to stay in school B. Helped me strengthen my reading skills C. Helped me strengthen my math skills D. Helped me have higher academic expectations for myself E. Other F. Did not help me prepare academically Academic Characteristics: These questions will ask you about your experience with school. I am in high school or college currently. A. Yes [Skip to Future Orientation Questions] B. No What kind of grades do you get in school? A. Mostly As B. Mostly Bs C. Mostly Cs D. Mostly Ds E. Mostly Fs Do you like going to school? A. Almost always B. Sometimes C. Never Does it matter to you if you do well in school? A. Almost always B. Sometimes C. Never How interesting are most of your school courses to you? A. Interesting B. Sometimes interesting and sometimes boring C. Always boring Are you doing as well as you would like to in school? A. Yes B. No
102
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey Future Orientation: These questions will ask you about your future careers. Can you name three careers you are interested in? A. Yes B. No Did you talk to supervisors at your worksite about jobs you are interested in? A. Yes B. No Do you have a cover letter? A. Yes B. No Do you have a resume? A. Yes B. No How energetic and healthy do you feel right now? A. Very healthy B. Somewhat healthy C. Not healthy at all How satisfied are you with your life right now? A. Not satisfied at all B. Somewhat satisfied C. Very satisfied How much stress or pressure is in your life right now? A. A lot of stress B. Some stress C. No stress at all How optimistic are you about your future? A. The future looks very bad B. The future looks ok C. The future looks great What are your future school plans? (Check up to two that apply) A. I have no plans to finish high school or get a GED B. I plan to finish high school or get a GED C. I plan to work after high school and not go to college D. I plan to complete a job training program (for example: electrician, plumber, hairstylist) E. I plan to graduate from college F. I already graduated from a college G. I plan to join the army H. None of the above
103
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey Work Attitudes: The following questions ask about your things that might have happened at work. Did you arrive to work on time today? A. Yes B. No Do you feel it would be okay to take off a few days from work without telling your Worksite Supervisor? C. Yes D. No Do you feel like you have to call your supervisor if you are going to be just a few minutes late? C. Yes D. No Do you think it is important to have a clean and neat appearance at work? C. Yes D. No Do you think that there would be rules you are expected to follow at work? A. Yes B. No Do you think you should ask questions if you do not understand what you are supposed to do at work? A. Yes B. No Risk Behavior Attitudes and Awareness: These questions ask about your experiences in other parts of your life. It asks some other personal questions. Remember, your answers are confidential. This means your answers will stay secret. Please respond whether you feel like the statements are: 1. True 2. False Drinking is bad for me. Using LSD, cocaine, amphetamines, or other illegal drugs is bad for me. It is ok to get suspended from school for fighting. It is ok to carry a handgun to protect myself. It is bad to sell illegal drugs. It is ok to get arrested for doing something illegal. It is ok to drop out of school.
104
DC Youth Summer Youth Employment Program Post Survey What do you think you would have done if you had not participated in SYEP? Select all that apply. A. Stayed at home B. Looked for another job C. Worked somewhere else D. Played sports E. Attended other summer programs F. Volunteered G. Hung out with friends H. Summer school for middle or high school I. Travelled J. Took summer courses in college K. Babysat L. Other M. I dont know If I did not have a job this summer, I would have been more likely to get into trouble or be a trouble maker in my community. A. Yes B. No C. I dont know Satisfaction: These questions ask about your experience with participating in 2011 SYEP. Overall, how satisfied are you with your participation in SYEP? A. Very satisfied B. Somewhat satisfied C. Not satisfied at all Do you want to participate in SYEP next summer? A. Yes, at the same job B. Yes, but at a different job C. No If no, why dont you want to participate in SYEP next summer? Select all that apply. A. I expect to have a better job. B. I expect to be in school. C. I do not expect to be living in the District of Columbia. D. I did not have a good experience. How honest were you in filling out this survey? A. I was honest all of the time. B. I was honest some of the time. C. I was not honest at all.
105
Appendix D: DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey
106
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey

Survey Invitation Email Hello SYEP Supervisor, The Department of Employment Services has partnered with the George Washington University and the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation to evaluate Mayor Vincent C. Grays One City Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). The survey can be accessed at this link: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CVA38RGNM This survey is to tell us about the effect that SYEP program can have on youth as well as your experience and reflections on participating in the program. The information you give will be used to develop better programming to help meet your needs as well as the needs of the youth. The answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Completing the survey is voluntary and results are anonymous, therefore please be sure NOT to write your name or organization on any page. In addition, over the next month you may be contacted to participate in an in-person or phone interview. Once again, participation in this is completely voluntary. Thank you! Survey Reminder Email Hello SYEP 2011 Supervisor: Several weeks ago, you were sent an email about an evaluation study related to Mayor Vincent C. Grays One City Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). If you have not done so already, please click on the following link to complete a survey about your experience with SYEP: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CVA38RGNM. This survey is designed to help us learn more about the effects that the SYEP may have on its youth participants and also provides us with insight into your experience as a participating employer in the program. The information you provide will be used to help improve the program to better meet your needs as well as the needs of the youth. The answers you give will be kept private. No one will know what you write except the people involved in the study. Completing the survey is voluntary and results are anonymous, therefore please be sure NOT to write your name or organization on any page. Once again, the survey can be accessed at the following link: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CVA38RGNM Thank you!
107
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey Evaluation of the DC Summer Youth Employment Program Informed Consent Form You are invited to participate in a program evaluation of the Department of Employment Services (DOES) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). Taking part in this evaluation is entirely voluntary. The status of your employment will not, in any way, be affected should you choose not to participate or if you decide to withdraw from the study at any time. The purpose of this study is to monitor the effectiveness of SYEP and ensure the future success of the program. If you choose to take part in this study, you will be asked questions about your experiences with SYEP, your views on certain issues, and personal reflections. The questions asked will be about demographics, attitudes towards risk behaviors, academic characteristics, and employability skills. The total amount of time you will spend in connection with this study is between 30 and 45 minutes. You may refuse to answer any of the questions and you may stop your participation in this study at any time. There are no unusual risks or discomforts you could experience during this study. Participating in this study poses no risks that are not ordinarily encountered in daily life. You may feel some emotional stress/discomfort answering the survey questions. You are free to skip any questions or stop taking the survey at any point. You will not benefit directly from your participation in the study. The benefits to science and humankind that might result from this study are: to provide DOES with information about participant s experiences and the overall effectiveness of SYEP. In addition, it will provide other programs with information on the effects of overall summer youth employment programs. It should be noted that the data collected between June 2011 and December 2011 will be also used as part of a dissertation research study for Nisha Sachdev, a Doctorate of Public Health student at GWU. This dissertation is under the direction of Dr. Karen McDonnell of the Department of Prevention and Community Health at George Washington University (GWU). As noted before, any information we collect will be used ONLY to assess SYEP and to track general group trends. Individual responses will not be made public. We will not use your name in any report. At the end of the evaluation, we will destroy all records that include personal information. The Office of Human Research of GWU, at telephone number 202-994-2715, can provide further information about your rights as a research participant. Further information regarding this study may be obtained by contacting Nisha Sachdev at 734-358-0151.
Eligibility Questions Pick one: A. I consent to being a part of BOTH the dissertation study and the program evaluation. B. I consent to being a part of only the program evaluation. C. I consent to being a part of only the dissertation study. Did you participate in the DC Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) for the summer of 2011? A. Yes B. No [Screen Out]
108
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey Please complete this survey as honestly as you can and any information provided will be confidential. In addition, please make sure you answer every question and select only one response unless noted that you may select more than one. In addition, you may be contacted in the next few weeks to participate in a voluntary in-person or phone interview. The purposes of these interviews are to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with SYEP. If there are any questions or you are unable to access the survey online, please contact Nisha Sachdev at nasachde@gwu.edu. Please complete the survey online by September 10, 2011. The survey contains about 35 questions and takes about 15 minutes to complete. Demographic Information What type of organization do you represent? A. Non-Profit/Community Based Organization B. For-Profit Organization C. Government Agency D. School/University E. Other What is the main purpose of your organization? Select up to two answers that apply. A. Youth B. Faith C. Law enforcement D. Education E. Community improvement or development F. Research or data collection G. Outdoor beautification H. Arts or culture I. Sales or retail J. Health K. Sports or recreation L. Childcare M. Other How many years have you worked at your organization/agency? A. Less than 1 year B. 1 to 2 years C. 3 to 5 years D. 5 to 8 years E. More than 8 years What is your primary role within your organization/agency? A. Administration B. Youth worker C. Executive Director/Manager D. Assistant E. Program Manager F. Other How many years have you participated in SYEP? A. This is my first summer. B. This is my second summer. C. This is my third summer. D. I have participated in SYEP four or more summers.
109
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey Was the online host work site portal easy to use? A. Always B. Sometimes C. Never D. I did not use the portal Did you have issues with the payroll system? A. Always B. Sometimes C. Never D. I did not use the payroll system. Did you participate in the Advancing Youth Development training? A. Yes B. No C. I dont know If yes, do you believe this training was helpful in working with the youth this summer? A. Yes B. No How many youth did you employ this summer as part of SYEP? A. 1 to 5 youth B. 6 to 10 youth C. 11 to 15 youth D. 16 to 20 youth E. More than 20 youth What age group did a majority of your youth fall in? A. 14 to 16 years B. 17 to 21 years Did you identify the specific youth you wanted to engage at your specific worksite? A. Yes B. No C. I dont know If yes, did you receive the youth you identified? A. Yes, all of them B. Yes, some of them C. No Do you believe you had a clear understanding of your responsibilities before the start of SYEP? A. Yes B. No Do you feel that you were given the information necessary to properly plan a high quality program? A. Yes B. No
110
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey Did you provide an orientation to the specific position(s) youth were employed in? A. Yes B. No If yes, what did your orientation include? Please check all that apply. A. Gave a tour of the workplace B. Introduced youth to other staff members C. Set up the opportunity for youth to learn from another employee D. Connected youth with other workers that could answer any questions they had E. Talked about job responsibilities F. Discussed work schedule G. Discussed the dress code H. Gave an overview of the equipment they would be using I. Trained youth on skills they needed to do their job J. Other Overall, do you feel like you were prepared to work with the youth this summer? A. Yes B. No Do you feel that any questions or concerns you had were addressed by your SYEP liaison appropriately and in a timely manner? A. Yes B. No C. I did not have any questions or concerns How did your worksite help prepare youth for future employment? Select up to two answers that apply. A. Passing on good work ethic B. Introducing youth to a professional atmosphere C. Teaching the importance of team work D. Building leadership skills E. Offering exposure to possible career choices F. Other G. My worksite did not help prepare youth for future employment. Did your worksite help prepare youth academically? A. Yes B. No If yes, how did your worksite help prepare youth academically? Select up to three answers that apply. A. Building reading and writing skills B. Building math and science skills C. Building problem-solving and critical thinking skills D. Strengthening skills associated with organization, following directions, and time management E. Reinforcing study habits F. Reinforcing the importance of getting an education G. Connecting youth to higher education or educational resources H. Building computer and technology skills
Do you believe the youth fully understood the requirements of participating SYEP? A. A majority of the youth B. Some youth C. None of the youth
111
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey What do you think were the most important job skills that were passed on to youth this summer? Select up to three answers that apply. A. Computer skills B. Problem-solving C. Public speaking D. Accepting supervision E. Financial management skills F. Importance of a career G. Communication skills H. How to be organized I. Reporting to work on time J. Dressing appropriately for work K. Completing assignments on time L. Asking for help when they dont understand an assignment M. Being responsible N. Using numbers O. Other Do you think that SYEP helped the youth with any of the following? Choose all answers that apply. A. Telling others about ideas and feelings B. Listening to other people C. Working with others on a team D. Making good decisions E. Setting goals F. Being a good leader G. Taking care of problems without violence or fighting H. Finding at least one adult that supports them I. I do not think that SYEP helped the youth with any of the above. How do you feel the youth engaged with your program or organization? A. Youth were involved and engaged. B. Youth were not interested initially, but became interested. C. Youth were not involved or engaged. What do you feel was the greatest challenge of employing youth? Select up to two answers that apply. A. Encouraging youth to be on time B. Keeping youth on task C. Lack of experience of the youth D. Finding common understanding of expectation E. Providing adult supervision F. Assisting youth in developing a positive work ethic G. Encouraging youth to use appropriate language and behavior H. Keeping youth busy with things to do I. Handling youth transportation issues J. Providing additional job training during the summer K. Finding dependable, committed youth L. No challenges M. Other
112
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey The following questions are assessing the performance of the youth at the end of the program. Please rate if you feel a majority of the youth (at least 75% of the youth supervised) accomplished the following skills. Choose: 1. At least 75% of the youth supervised accomplished the skill. 2. At least 75% of the youth supervised DID NOT accomplished the skill. 3. You are unsure if the youth accomplished the skill. Reported to work at the appropriate time and place Called when late or absent Had regular attendance Dressed appropriately Had a positive attitude Accepted constructive criticism from supervisors and co-workers Completed tasks appropriately Followed instructions Worked well with others Asked appropriate questions Behaved in a professional manner at the worksite Showed initiative Do you have plans to permanently hire the youth who worked for you this summer? A. Yes B. No C. I dont know Would you have hired the youth even if their salaries were not fully subsidized? A. Yes B. No C. I dont know Would you participate in SYEP again? A. Yes B. No Would you encourage other organizations similar to yours to participate in SYEP? A. Yes B. No Overall, how satisfied are you with your participation in SYEP? A. Very satisfied B. Somewhat satisfied C. Not satisfied at all Was your organization a grantee of the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (The Trust)? A. Yes B. No [Screen Out]
113
DC Supervisor Summer Youth Employment Program Survey Which resource(s) offered by the Trust did you find beneficial? Respond: 1. Very Beneficial 2. Somewhat Beneficial 3. Not Beneficial Program Officer Programming Support Administrative Support Access to Agency Partnerships Funding Which process of communication with the Trust worked best for your organization? A. Communicating with only one agency B. Communicating with both agencies simultaneously C. Communicating separate concerns to separate agencies How supportive was the Trust with the following: 1. Very Supportive 2. Somewhat Supportive 3. Not Supportive Program support Youth engagement Grant expectations Communication with DOES Length of grant Access to funding Would you consider applying for the SYEP grant through the Trust next summer? A. Yes B. No C. I dont know Thank you for participating in the evaluation of SYEP!!!
114
Appendix E: Focus Group Protocols
115
Youth Focus Group Protocol
Hello SYEP 2011 Participants: First, thank you again for your participation in Mayor Vincent C. Grays One City Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). I hope that you enjoyed your time in the program and that you will apply again next year. Our team is currently finalizing plans for SYEP 2012, but we need your help! We will be working with the George Washington University (GWU) and the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC) to host our SYEP 2011 Youth Focus Group Sessions. These sessions will be held on Thursday, November 10 and Monday, November 14 from 4:30-6:30PM at the DOES Headquarters Building which is located at 4058 Minnesota Avenue NE (right next to the Minnesota Avenue Metro Station). These sessions are a chance for you to tell us what you really think of SYEP... What did you like or dislike about your experience? What, if anything, did you learn? How can we improve the program? What aspects of the program worked well and what didnt work so well? How can we help ensure you are better prepared for work? How can we communicate with you better? If you have something to say, we want to hear it! We want to capture your feedback so that we can make this program the best in the nation! If you would like to attend one of our SYEP 2011 Youth Focus Group Sessions, please RSVP by clicking the correct link below: SYEP Youth Focus Group Session 1 (Thursday, November 10 from 4:30-6:30PM): https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SYEPYouthFocusGroupSession1 SYEP Youth Focus Group Session 2 (Monday, November 14 from 4:30-6:30PM): https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SYEPYouthFocusGroupSession2 Transportation assistance is available and refreshments will be served! Hope to see you there! All the best, Gerren Price Associate Director DOES Office of Youth Programs
116
Youth Focus Group Protocol YOUTH FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL Recruitment/Outreach 1. How did you hear about the SYEP application? 2. How did you hear about the program (flyers, radio, ads)? Application Process 1. Was the on-line application user friendly? 2. Did you need assistance at any point with the application? 3. Who assisted you with the application process (teacher, parent, etc.)? 4. Were you aware of all application requirements? 5. Did you understand the career categories and interest questions? 6. How can we improve the certification process? 7. Did you bring your documents in person? Did you know what to bring? 8. What prevented you from completing the application process? Job Placement 1. Did your job placement match your listed career interested? 2. Did you gain reliable/transferable skills from your job? Would you go back? 3. Did you know how to select your job in the SYEP system? Why or Why not? 4. Did you attend the SYEP Job Expo? Was it helpful to you? 5. Were you interviewed? Were you ready for your interview? 6. Is it important that you work close to home or within your career interest? Youth Preparedness/Orientation 1. Were you prepared for the first day of work? 2. Did you have the right clothes? 3. Were you able to get to your job the first day? 4. Was orientation helpful? 5. Was the information presented clearly in orientation? How can we improve it? 6. Was there anything difficult about your job? Did your supervisor help you? Payroll 1. Were you paid on time and correctly? 2. If you had any payroll issues, were they resolved in a timely manner? 3. How did you use your funds? Did you need assistance with anything? 4. Were you aware of proper card use? Fees? Balance-checking etc.? 5. Did you have issues accessing your funds? 6. Did you withdraw all funds at once? On the Job Experience 1. Did you feel safe on the job? 2. Did you have clear responsibilities? Was your supervisor helpful? 3. Do you know anyone who was terminated? Do you know why? Do you understand the process? 4. Were there any barriers that hindered your participation? Post SYEP/Next Steps 1. What did you do after the SYEP shift was over? 2. What did you do after SYEP concluded for the summer? 3. How did SYEP support your future goals? 4. What is one thing you would change (besides wages/hours)? 5. Are you using skills used in SYEP in school or school in SYEP?
117
Supervisor Focus Group Protocol SUPERVISOR FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL Host Worksite/Youth Application Process 1. What are the strengths/weaknesses of the host work site application? 2. What are the strengths/weaknesses of the job matching process? 3. What are the strengths/weaknesses of the youth selection process? 4. How can we do better at making sure that we get the word out to all constituents? 5. Is there anything in the application that people found difficult? 6. Were you satisfied with the confirmation process? 7. How can we improve the confirmation process? 8. Was the application easy to access? 9. Was the application easy to use? 10. What are additional questions we can add to the application to better assist you with identifying youth that match your program criteria/needs? 11. Did the application capture all information necessary? 12. Overall how would you rate the SYEP 2011 Host Work Site/Youth Application Process? Host Worksite/Youth Preparedness/Experience 1. Were you and your youth prepared for the first day of work? 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Employer Orientation? 3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the job fair? 4. What are the strengths/ weaknesses of the youth portal? 5. What capacity building things can we do to better equip the young people with to make them better prepared for their work experience? 6. What should the young people have gained from the experience? 7. Were you able to make contact with your youth prior to the start of the program? 8. What would have made your youth better prepared for the first day of work? 9. What are some of the common barriers for youth at your site? How could DOES assist in these areas? 10. Overall how would you rate the SYEP 2011 Host Work Site/Youth Preparedness/Experience process? Payroll 1. How did the once a week pay schedule work for you and your payroll coordinator? 2. What are the strengths/ weaknesses of the time entry system? 3. What are the strengths/weaknesses of the pay resolution system? 4. How user friendly was the time application? 5. Were you able to successfully enter time for your youth each pay period? 6. Overall how would you rate the SYEP 2011 Payroll process? Policies and Procedures 1. Was there a clear transfer/termination process outlined? 2. What are the strengths/weaknesses of the termination process and policies? 3. What are the strengths/weaknesses of the transfer process and policies? 4. Did you have more control over transfers to your site? 5. Did you receive adequate warning when youth were added to your site? 6. How do you rate/feel about the policy as it pertains to disciplining youth? 7. Did the policies and procedures address the needs of your program? 8. Were there some policies that you felt were not helpful, if so which ones? 9. How easy or difficult did you find it to adhere to the rules and regulations regarding SYEP 2011? 10. Overall how would you rate the SYEP 2011 Policies and Procedures process?
118
Supervisor Focus Group Protocol Communication/Customer Service 1. Did you find the Monitors helpful for your site? Any suggestions on the Monitoring component? 2. Was DOES responsive to all inquiries regarding deadlines? 3. What are the strengths/weaknesses of the liaison communication system? 4. What are the strengths/weaknesses of our email communication system? 5. Was your liaison helpful in assisting you with all your issues and concerns? 6. Were the program monitors helpful with assisting you with your issues and concerns? 7. Were you aware of all program deadlines? 8. What could we do better to inform you? 9. Overall how would you rate the SYEP 2011 Communication/Customer Service?
119
Appendix F: Supervisor Interview Protocols
120
Supervisor Interview Protocol
Hello SYEP Supervisor, The Department of Employment Services and George Washington University are conducting an evaluation of the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) to monitor effectiveness and ensure future success of the program. You are invited to participate in an in-person or phone interview to share your experiences. Participation is VOLUNTARY and all responses are CONFIDENTIAL and ANONYMOUS. If you wish to participate, please click on the link below to schedule the day and time you are available to speak for about 45 minutes. http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22D4NTCA2DL If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Nisha Sachdev at nasachde@gwu.edu or 734-3580151. Thank you! Nisha
121
Supervisor Interview Protocol SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. How did you find out about the SYEP? 2. Have you participated in SYEP previously? 3. How many youth did you employ? 4. What information did you receive about your duties and responsibilities? 5. Describe your assigned duties. 6. What do you do if you finish your work early? 7. What do you feel like a successful summer looks like in the eyes of the youth and the employers? 8. What do you feel were the overall strengths of this years SYEP program? 9. What support and resources do you feel you had that helped with your experiences? 10. What was your biggest obstacle this summer? What do you think would have helped you overcome this obstacle? 11. What barriers have stood in the way of intended implementation of SYEP? 12. What were your big goals for the summer? Do you feel like you met these goals? 13. What do you feel worked better this summer than last summer? 14. What do you hope the youth gained through their summer experience? 15. How do you think the employers benefited from SYEP? 16. What staff skills and knowledge is necessary to run the summer program effectively? 17. Please comment on the level of support SYEP provided you during the summer. 18. What communication techniques from DOES were helpful to you during your experience? 19. What benefits do you realize from participating in this program? 20. What other resources or supports (if any) would have been helpful? 21. What are your opinions about the AYD Training? 22. Please describe any highlights or memorable moments you experienced during the program. 23. What kinds of Work site problems occurred if any? How did you solve them? 24. What issues do you feel effected youth success at the work site? 25. Do you have any suggestions for improving the program, other comments, or questions? 26. If you could change one thing about SYEP what would it be? Explain. 27. Would you participate in SYEP in 2011? Explain.
122
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Washington, D.C. High School Dropout Crisis
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
College Success Foundation DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation WETA, American Graduate DC initiative October 2012
Report prepared by: Nisha Sachdev, Ph.D. Research and Evaluation Manager DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
Overview of Report
Washington, D.C. high school graduation rates continue to lag behind other cities nationally. This report provides an overview of the dropout crisis and assists in planning
(1) a descriptive analysis of the high school graduation status in D.C.; (2) an overview of the resource and geographic gaps of services currently available. This assessment focuses on deepen their knowledge and understanding of factors and consequences of dropping out resources and services in DC currently available for youth; and (3) a brief description of the the goal that all youth should be provided the resources and opportunities to graduate high school. It is also available to provide useful information to community stakeholders to help and services available to help alleviate the high school graduation crisis in Washington, D.C. This study was sponsored by WETA 1 in collaboration with the College Success Foundation the American Graduate 4 project, a national public media initiative addressing the dropout crisis around the country. The full project included compiling a list of organizations that about their work and their need for volunteers; producing a searchable online database (CSF) 2 and the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (the Trust) 3 as part of are working effectively to address the D.C. dropout problem; surveying those organizations
for youth services to continue to improve academic outcomes. This report contains
listing the organizations; describing their work; and showcasing volunteer opportunities; other components can be found at the American Graduate DC website. Comments and
and preparing a gap analysis interpreting the survey results, showing where services are
available and identify gaps in service delivery. This report focuses on the gap analysis. The questions from this report are welcome and can be directed to Nisha Sachdev, the Research and Evaluation Manager at the Trust at nsachdev@cyitc.org.
Information for WETA can be found at: http://www.weta.org/ Information for the College Success Foundation can be found at: http://www.collegesuccessfoundation.org 3 Information for the Trust can be found at: http://www.cyitc.org 4 Information for America Graduate DC can be found at: http://www.americangraduatedc.org/
1 2
High School Graduation in Washington, D.C.

trajectories socially and economically. Individual benefits include better health and greater opportunities for the next generation. Furthermore, high school education is not only 2006). increased productivity, lower crime rates, and increased community service (Sokatch, important to individuals; the societal consequences of a well-educated citizenry include High school completion has far-reaching consequences and affects individuals life
In the United States today, only 60% of low-income youth can expect to graduate from high school, one in three can expect to enroll in college, and only one in seven will earn a bachelors degree (Kenny, Gualdron & Sparks, 2007). In Washington, D.C., this statistic is (DCPS) and DC public charter schools (DCPCS), only 43 graduate from high school within graduating high school, and 9 attain a postsecondary degree within five years of enrolling in college (Double the Numbers, 2006). Furthermore, it is important to note the inconsistencies of high school graduation by five years, 29 enroll in postsecondary educational programs within 18 months of even more devastating. Of every 100 students who enter 9th grade in D.C. public schools
schools and/or ward. For example, in Ward 1 the graduation rate is 68% (ranging from 12% to 75%). 5 Wards 7 and 8 are the poorest wards in D.C. with high rates of negative social indicators. It is necessary that the youth in these wards have access to quality resources and programs to help overcome these inconsistencies.
40% to 100% by school) versus Ward 8 where the graduation rate is 55% (ranging from
See http://www.americangraduatedc.org/content/dc-high-school-graduation-rates-school for graduation rates by school and ward.

5
Factors Leading to Dropping Out

According to a study done by Civic Enterprises (2006), the top five factors leading to engaged peers, not enough life structure, and failing school (See Figure 1). dropping out are the classes not being interesting, missing too many days to catch up, nonFigure 1. Top Five Reasons Dropouts Identify as Major Factors for Leaving School.
Was failing in school Had too much freedom and not enough rules in my life Spent time with people who were not interested in school Missed too many days and could not catch up Classes were not interesting
Source: Civic Enterprises, 2006.
35% 38% 42% 43% 47%
Many previous studies use the National Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (NELS
2002), which was designed to monitor the transition of a nationally representative sample of students from tenth grade through high school graduation and on to postsecondary education. NELS 2002 was conducted to provide comprehensive information to students, and school-level factors on educational success (National Education Longitudinal Study, 2002). In addition to the above, further factors and consequences of dropping out are provided through NELS 2002. their parents, their teachers, and their schools to estimate the effects of both student-level
Lack of Academic Achievement and School Attendance

Unsurprisingly and consistent with the statistics above and the NELS 2002, low-income African-American youth are faced with limited resources and generally have the poorest
record of student academic success. For example, a recent report indicates that schools leads to frustration and ultimately students dropping out (Thomas, 2000).
lacking counselors, teachers with adequate training, and college preparatory curricula have a serious problem providing students with an adequate and fair level of education, which
In addition, achievement test scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that African-American scores fall considerably behind white and Asian-American students in reading, mathematics, and science (Rogers, Terriquez, Valladares & Oakes, 2004). These data signify inadequate college preparation and demonstrate a significant
barrier to progression for students who attend these schools. The lack of achievement may lead to discouragement with the youth and therefore lack of motivation to graduate. School environment on the whole has the potential to impact truancy or even dropout rates altogether. It was reported students who had a negative experience in the academic setting were more likely to have feelings of rejection and thus, were more likely than their counterparts to drop out of school (Becker & Bronwyn, 2002). Approximately 20% of all public school students in DC have missed 15 days of unexcused absences, with the total other family and peer factors (CYITC, 2011). being 40% for 9th graders (American Graduate DC, 2012). This high rate shows that youth are not attending school consistently and could be due to the school environment as well as
Income
Income has also been found to be closely related to graduation rates: the higher the family income of a starting student, the greater are his or her chances of graduating (BrooksGunn, Guo & Furstenberg, 1993). Students report that financial concerns such as having to care for a relative, having a child, or running out of money are powerful factors that can their grades and attendance (American Federation of Teachers, 2008). result in dropping out. The data also show that one of the reasons students leave before graduation is that they work too much while attending school which can have an effect on
Peer and Parental Involvement

failure. Studies show that when parents are involved in their childrens education at home, In addition, studies show that children who have supportive parents who understand their educational goals are more likely to succeed in school. These patterns include parent
Egeland & Collins, 2008).
Supportive parental involvement is believed to determine students academic success or
students are more motivated to do better in school (National Education Association, 2008). involvement in school beginning from the time a child is in middle school, participation in parent-teacher conferences, and emotional support on behalf of the parents (Englund,
Previous research also indicates peer acceptance is associated with how a child performs in school (Rubin, William, Bulkowski & Parker, 1998). It was found that when youth have peers with positive educational goals, they seem to emulate their peers goals and have strong educational aspirations as well (National Education Association, 2008).
Lack of Motivation and Social Issues

One of the least explored contributors to poor academic achievement and truancy is childhood emotional distress. Experts understand a correlation exists between early
emotional distress and poor social and academic adjustment (McLoyd, 1998; Becker et al, 2002). Furthermore, students from the least advantaged backgrounds showed the worst outcomes, measured by reports of depression and low levels of motivation (Becker et. al, 2002). Early development of coping mechanisms for emotional distress, academically from teachers is crucial for student achievement.
supportive peer groups, and an overall positive school environment, including investment The lack of use of preventive services (such as health care services) and the lack of health insurance are also factors related to educational attainment (Feinstein, Sabates, Anderson, smoking initiation and cessation, obesity, poor food-related behaviors, and low physical
Sohaindo & Hammond, 2006). It has been found that excessive alcohol consumption,
activity had moderate to strong relationships with low educational attainment. These risky
or unhealthy behaviors lead to negative health outcomes in those with lower education attainment.
Consequences of Dropping out

Economic Consequences
The students who dropped out from the 2008 graduating class will cost D.C. almost $504 million in the economy. A breakdown of how dropping out effects the DC economy is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: The Effects of Dropping Out on DCs Economy
lost wages over their lifetimes (Alliance for Excellent
Education, 2009). In addition, it leads to lost wages in
Societal/Youth Consequences
The push for education reform primarily revolves around the idea that education is directly related to earnings. In general there is a strong belief higher educational achievement is the path to better jobs and higher earnings (Card, 1998). Yet there is a barrage of research suggesting high school attainment also Mirowskym, 2011; Muening, Fiscell, Tancredi & Franks, 2010). In general those with higher plays a role in health behaviors and outcomes (Ross &
achievement in education tend to have better economic and health outcomes compared to those with lower educational attainment. For example, high school graduation has been alcohol use and smoking during pregnancy in women (Muennig et al, 2010; Ross et al, 2011). linked to better health behavior such as personal control and less risky behaviors such as
Source: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006.
Low educational attainment also plays a role in developing a variety of health problems.
Among those with lower educational attainment, there is a link to depression (Liem et al., 2004; Lleras-Muney, 2005; Ross & Mirowsky, 2010). Ross and Mirowskys work also impairment. In general the relationship between educational attainment and health
2010, Kitagawa & Hauser,1973), cardiovascular diseases (Muennig et al., 2009), morbidity, mortality, and disability (Muennig et al., 2009; Lauderdale 2001; Lynch, 2003; Schnittker, suggests lower educational attainment may contribute to lower physical functioning and outcomes improve on a gradient, but outcomes substantially improve when at least some college education is achieved (Muennig, 2009, Liem et al., 2010, Feinstein et al., 2006).
Summary of Services Available to Youth6

A majority of DC youth are eligible to enroll in the youth development programs offered by such as grade level, location of school and/or residence, and career interests. An
College Access Programs (CAPs), although some of the programs have special requirements overwhelming majority of students served by the youth development non-profits in DC are attend college. The students seek to join the programs on a voluntary basis, with some from low-income, minority, single-parent households and are the first in their families to recruitment efforts from the organizations such as presentations in the school, flyers, and targeting schools. Although they have similar demographic characteristics as the general willingness to attend the programs after school hours. D.C. youth population, these students are generally more motivated, demonstrated by their A survey was sent out through various listservs to collect information on the current
organizations that were available to provide youth development services to the youth in D.C. In addition, DC CARES provided information on applicable organizations that have registered with their volunteer database. A total of 85 organizations were included that
6
This represents the 85 organizations that participated in the survey.
were applicable to this project (84% from survey and 16% from DC Cares). The following section summarizes the results.
Overview of Programs
that the programs had the option to select multiple choices for each characteristic (e.g., a program could provide multiple services and serve multiple age groups). Types of Programs Many of the programs (n=35 or 41%) had an academic component including tutoring and homework help. Furthermore, 18% (n=15) of the programs target reading and writing skills. About a quarter of them (n=22 or 26%) reported providing career exploration, half (n=41 or 48%) provide college awareness and preparation activities. which is important as it engages youth early about possible careers. Furthermore, about In addition, to engage the students further than academics and college preparation, 38% almost a quarter of the programs (n=19 or 22%) which alleviates the risk of lack of parental involvement being a factor in dropping out. Also, 35% of the programs (n=30) sports, and recreation are provided in 30% (n=26) of the programs which can provide youth development outcomes outside of the classroom. Youth Characteristics The programs responding to the survey provide services to youth Pre-K to college. A with about half continuing with the students post high school. Likewise, most of the programs served 14 to 18 year olds. The number of youth served varied from larger majority of the programs however are targeted to high school students (n=75 or 88%), programs to those serving fewer than 50 youth with many of them having the capability of serving more than 250 youth. It should be noted that the survey was only sent to those 8 Table 1 shows the survey responses regarding program characteristics. In should be noted
(n=32) programs target life skills and 29% (n=25). Parent engagement is also provided by provided mentoring which helped provide social support to the youth. Lastly, arts, music,
organizations that target middle and high school students; however some of these through high school.
programs do offer supplemental services to younger youth, with many of the youth
beginning with the program at a younger age and progressing through the program Recruitment of Youth Recruitment methods to have youth join the programs varied by organizations. A majority of the programs recruited the youth via outreach methods such as going to the school or neighborhoods (n=53 or 62%). In addition, many of these programs also invited the youth to join the program according to eligibility (for example, low-income). Other recruitment methods included referrals from teachers or other providers and request by the youth to join the program. Collaboration Efforts of Programs In addition, these programs partner with intermediaries and advocacy organizations to increase support and collaboration to the services provided. About a third (n=29 or 34%) partner with DC Cares, primarily to recruit volunteers to assist youth with academic and to build capacity to serve the youth in the programs. This is done by receiving funding, attending trainings, and/or receiving support on increasing program quality. Location and Operations of Programs The programs are located and serve youth throughout the city. It was found most of the programs are open to all youth, with a focus on youth from Wards 7 and 8 (n= 63 or 74% lowest number of programs that are physically located within the wards (n=3 or 4% and in the ward (n= 22 or 26% and n=26 or 31% respectively). This shows a disconnect of an issue of access to the programs. It should be noted that over half the programs are located within schools (n=53 or 62%) and operated year round (n=43 or 51%). social needs in the program. In addition, about half (n=39 or 46%) partner with the Trust
and n=68 or 80% respectively). However, it should be noted that these two wards have the n=9 or 11% respectively). Wards 1 and 2 have the highest percentage of programs located where the programs are actually located and where the youth are from, which may lead to 9
Table 1. Youth Development Program Characteristics. Services Provided Academic Skills Art and Music Career Exploration College Awareness and Preparation GED Preparation Life Skills Mentoring Multicultural/Multilingual Parent Engagement Reading and Writing Skills Service Learning/Community Service Sports and Recreation Grades Served 6-8 9-12 Post 12th Grade Ages Served 9-13 years 14-16 years 17-18 years Over 18 years Number of Youth Served Fewer than 50 youth 51-75 youth 76-100 youth 101-250 youth 250+ youth Outreach Invitation by Program Recruitment by Program Referral Request by Participant Partner Organization DC Cares DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation Double the Numbers (Table 1 continued on the next page) Number 35 12 22 41 4 32 30 9 19 15 25 14 61 75 42 56 72 73 39 11 4 10 19 35 54 53 34 41 29 39 24 Percent 41% 14% 26% 48% 5% 38% 35% 11% 22% 18% 29% 16% 72% 88% 49% 66% 85% 86% 46% 13% 5% 12% 22% 41% 64% 62% 40% 48% 34% 46% 28%
10
Table 1. Youth Development Program Characteristics (continued). Ward Youth Served From 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ward Location of Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Months of Operation Academic School Year Summer Year Round In School Yes No Number 53 42 36 51 49 48 63 68 22 26 2 12 11 3 9 40 23 43 53 22 Percent 62% 49% 42% 60% 58% 56% 74% 80% 26% 31% 0% 2% 14% 13% 4% 11% 47% 27% 51% 62% 26%
11
Figure 3. Distribution of Youth Resources and Services throughout Washington, D.C. (See interactive map on the American Graduate DC website)
12
Discussion and Recommendations

Discussion
Before implementing or developing programs that would encourage positive behavior specific perceptions of not just youth but various stakeholders themselves to better among D.C. youth and facilitate high school graduation, it was imperative to explore the understand the priorities within this population. Reflections on the descriptive analysis show there is an uneven distribution of youth services and resources throughout the community, there is no central repository for data related to D.C. youth, and community organizations geared toward youth are often highly localized and may not have the funding CAPs and resources for youth are also unevenly distributed across D.C. with many of the available actual programs are concentrated in Wards 1, 5, and 6 (although a high percentage of them serve youth from Wards 7 and 8). An examination of Wards 7 and 8 revealed that these Wards fare the worst on many of the indicators, including SES. Unfortunately, they are also home to the greatest percentage of children of any of the approaches are needed to effectively address these disparities (CYITC, 2011). Wards in D.C. Consequently, youth in Wards 7 and 8 bear a disproportionate burden of the disparities in health, education, recreation, culture and legal services. Additional targeted Key recommendations to help to maximize the resources and effectively to address the and community-based organizations.
or staff capability to conduct outreach or publicity outside of their immediate service areas.
drop out crisis include assessing program quality, address the diversity in participants, and collaboration. These were guided by the findings and additional discussions with youth
13
Recommendations
Quality Programming placements in programs should be based on specific youth needs and interests and future youth engage in a program where they can learn about the goals of programs, resources available, and program expectations, rules, and responsibilities. Supplemental Activities and Resources It has been found that a range of services is necessary for positive youth development such as the combination of early work experience, life skills training, the inclusion of remedial these programs are working with youth who are developing and learning skills to help educational exposure events, and youth leadership development. Community service opportunities. education in the array of services, and mental health services (HGSE, 2011). As many of navigate their transition into adulthood, program elements should be supplemented by other program activities, including career portfolio development, money management, should also be promoted as this can further expose youth to career interests and long-term It is important that the youth are in quality sites and being engaged positively. Youth
career goals. More program descriptions should be provided to youth to help determine if
the program is an appropriate fit. This could be done through workshops in schools before
Expanding Outreach to Reach Opportunity Youth and target youth from areas that lack resources such as Wards 7 and 8, efforts are needed and involvement in the criminal justice system. In addition, programs should continue to dropped out of high school (referred to as Opportunity Youth). Programs could utilize Although many of these programs have made progress in diversifying their participants
to continue to recruit youth who are at higher levels of negative risk factors such as poverty make a concerned effort to reach those youth who are disengaged, such as youth who have
their offerings to re-engage the youth while assisting them with reconnecting with positive opportunties. For example, selected spots in programs reserved for these youth and coupled with a GED or credit recovery programs. In addition, programs should continue to
14
partner with schools to recruit youth and make a concerted effort to provide support to underresourced schools to make sure the youth that attend those schools are receiving information. Collaboration with Other Agencies There are multiple agencies in D.C. that provide, fund, and oversee youth education, training, and services (Ross, 2011). However, the different funding streams and performance measures often work against collaboration and data sharing (Ross, 2011). By connecting all of these agencies in an ongoing and purposeful way, a holistic strategic plan prevention but the breadth of other youth issues. The city has already begun to make for youth development programming can be achieved, one that embraces not just dropout efforts to collaborate with some of these agencies, and by continuing these efforts; the
programs can leverage the resources and opportunities available. For example, working
with other agencies such as the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) can Tuition Assistance Grants. Programs should also reach out to local universities to provide assistance with not only the implementation of the program but also to provide resources and opportunities such as college tours and career fairs. Additionally, programs should teach money management skills. work with local banks such as PNC and Bank of America to help youth open accounts and
streamline recruitment and documentation that they require for programs such as the D.C.
15
References
American Federation of Teachers. (2012). Student Persistence in College: More Than Counting Caps and Gowns. http://www.aft.org/. Accessed October 16, 2012.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Guo, G. & Furstenberg, F. (1993). Who Drops Out of and Who Continues Beyond High School? A 20-Year Follow-Up of Black Urban Youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 3(3), 271-294. DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation. (2011). Needs and Assets Assessment of Washington, D.C. Youth: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: CYITC.
Becker, E & Brownyn, E. (2002). Social-Emotional Factors Affecting Achievement Outcomes Among Disadvantaged Students: Closing the Achievement Gap. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 197-214.
Card, D (1998). The Causal Effect of Education on Earnings, Handbook of Labor Economics, 6786. Double the Numbers. (2006). Double the Numbers for College Success: A Call to Action for the District of Columbia. http://www.doublethenumbersdc.org. Accessed October 14, 2012.
Englund, M., Egeland, B. & Collins, W. (2008). Exceptions to High School Dropout Predictions in a Low-Income Sample: Do Adults Make a Difference? Journal of Social Issues, 64, 77-93.
Feinstein, L., Sabates, R., Anderson, T., Sohaindo, A. & Hammond, C. (2006). What are the Effects of Education on Health? Measuring the Effects of Education on Education and Health and Civic Engagement: Proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium. Kenny, M, Gualdron, L. & Sparks, E. (2007). Urban Adolescents Constructions of Supports and Barriers to Educational and Career Attainment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 336-343. McLoyd, V. (1998). Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Child Development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185-204. Muening, P., Fiscell, K., Tancredi, D. & Franks, P. The Relative Health Burden of Selected Social and Behavioral Risk Factors in the United States: Implications for Policy. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1758-1764. 16
National Education Association. Getting Involved in Your Childs Education. http://www.nea.org/parents/index.html. Accessed October 12, 2012.
Rogers, J., Terriquez, V., Valladares, S. & Oakes, J. (2004). Roadblocks to College. California Educational Opportunity Report. Ross, C. & Mirowsky, A. (2011). The Interaction of Personal and Parental Education on Health. Journal of Social Science & Medicine, 72, 591-599. Rubin, K., William, M., Bulkowski, J. & Parker, J. (1998). Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. Handbook of Child Psychology, 3, 217-252. Thomas, S. (2000). The Distribution of Dropout and Turnover Rates among Urban and Suburban High Schools. Sociology of Education, 73, 39-67.
Sokatch, A. (2006). Peer Influences on the College-Going Decisions of Low Socioeconomic Status Urban Youth. Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 128-146.
17
Summer Camp Program 2012 Evaluation Report

December 2012
Prepared by: George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services Leslie Deroo, MPH(c) Jamie Gulin, MPH(c) Mike Hopewell, MPH(c) Marissa Jaross, MPH(c) Carle Nowakowski, MPH(c) Nada Raoof, MPH(c) Victoria Ta, MPH(c) Michelle Tripken, MPH(c) Edited by: Meg Hopkins, MPH Nisha Sachdev, DrPh
The evaluators would like to thank Dr. Sharia Shanklin for her assistance and support in preparing this evaluation. Additionally, we would like to thank the DC Department of Parks and Recreation for allowing our student group from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services to provide this service to the community. Thanks are also due to Dr. Nisha Sachdev and Meg Hopkins for their guidance and feedback along the way.
Appendix B: Evaluation Team Biographies -------------------------------------------- 32 Appendix A: Table 1: DPR Camps Included in Evaluation by Ward -------------- 31 References ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29 Discussion and Recommendations ------------------------------------------------------- 25 Findings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Data Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Methodology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Evaluation Scope --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Description of the Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
PAAS FCB DPR DOH CYITC
Program Assessment and Assistance System Hillcrest Friends of Carter Baron Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Health for Washington, DC DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
2 1
http://www.cyitc.org/elements/file/2012%20One%20City%20Summer-FINAL10.31.12.pdf For more information on the One City Summer Initiative visit: For more information on DPR visit http://dpr.dc.gov/DC/DPR
Friends and Carter Baron, and Landon Park Community Center. With regards to the PAAS program sites with the lowest overall ratings were Volta Park Recreation Center, Hillcrest staff relations and engagement and atmosphere of inclusion among the PAAS objectives. The Center, and Fort Davis Community Center. These three sites scored especially high in positive sites, the three that reported the most successes were Hardy Recreation Center, Ferebee Home Summer Camp Program successfully addresses youth development outcomes. Of the program The results of the PAAS surveys, completed from each of the program sites, concluded the DPR interviewing the participants in order to obtain their feedback. develop youth programs because it involves not only observing the activities but also youth in the DC area. Specifically, the PAAS was chosen for its ability to evaluate and help (CYITC), to serve as a resource for expanding and improving services and opportunities for The PAAS was developed by the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation for subsequent evaluations as well as identify areas of strengths and weaknesses of the program City Summer Initiative. The purpose of the overall evaluation was to collect baseline information Assessment and Assistance System (PAAS) tool as well as data collected as part of the 2012 One pilot evaluation was implemented for the 2012 Summer Camp Program utilizing the Program To ensure the Summer Camp Program is meeting its goal of enhancing DC youth development, a are able to participate regardless of their families financial status (DPR, 2012). weeks. Additionally, DPR offered financial assistance for the program so that all eligible youth camps are offered throughout the summer for varying lengths of time ranging from one to two activities include team sports, swimming, arts and crafts, theater, and outdoor exploration. The (workforce, academic achievement, healthy lifestyles, and safety and structure). 2 Program City Summer Initiative and were geared towards four of the five citywide summer goals demographics of each of the eight DC Wards. The activities offered aligned with the DC One The Summer Camp Program offered a variety of activities that are geared towards the health of DC youth. 1 educational performance, social attitudes, conflict resolution skills, and mental and physical recreational activities. The Summer Camp Program was created by DPR to develop and improve ensuring that DC residents and individuals from surrounding areas have appropriate access to DPR maintains DC parks, recreation and community centers, and swimming pools while community facilities and recreation centers within all eight Wards of DC. three to 14 years participate in the traditional Summer Camp Program each year at various resolution skills, and mental and physical health of DC youth. Approximately 5,000 youth, ages Recreation (DPR) to develop and improve educational performance, social attitudes, conflict The Summer Camp Program was created by the District of Columbia Department of Parks and
care and lost job productivity annually (NPRA, 2010). Therefore, minimal or no cost youth stress and missed workdays which cost organizations approximately $50 to $300 billion in health This helps parents of youth participants to balance work and family life, resulting in reduced participants and their parents due to minimal costs and convenient location (Mowen et al., 2009). government provided (or public) recreation programs are an accessible resource to youth exposure to violence (National Park and Recreation Association (NPRA), 2010). In addition, self-confidence; increasing educational performance; reducing youth delinquency; and reducing programs can positively influence youth behavior and health outcomes including: increasing through youth recreation programs (Mowen, Payne, Orsega-Smith & Godbey, 2009). Recreation Parks and Recreation agencies have the potential to impact youth behavior and health outcomes
scores at the sites within each of the eight Wards in DC, Ward 2 had the lowest average score, however it should be noted thatbut this was mainly due to one facility that scored extremely low in comparison to the other sites. Ward 8 had the highest average score; however this Ward reported a limited amount of data. Participant satisfaction with the Summer Camp Program was also measured using the One City Summer Initiative Surveys. Overall, the participants reported that they were satisfied with the specific program they participated in (60%)and were likely to recommend the Summer Camp Program to others (68%). Participants were also surveyed regarding their individual experiences, skills, and lessons learned from each activity as it related to the One City Summer Initiative goals. While 30 to 50% of participants reported that they enjoyed learning something new and making new friends, the same amount of participants reported that there insufficient opportunities to talk with an adult about life, school, and personal issues. However, 75% felt safe within the program environment. While each of the programs and facilities has individual areas that require improvement, the main recommendation determined from the evaluation was regarding the evaluation process itself. First, it is recommended DPR clearly communicate citywide objectives to all instructors. In addition, better data collection methods are needed. In order to make the evaluation process more streamlined, it is also recommended that all surveys be sent to one person or office for data management. Additionally, there should be a centralized data coordinator who examines each of the surveys for accuracy and completeness. Although the majority of the individual summer programs appear to be fulfilling their mission, it is recommended to continue further improving the overall program while honing in on the activities that require adjustments. Citywide, the Summer Camp Program needs to focus on promoting participants voice and choice and intentional instruction and clear steps to learning skills. Amongst the Wards, Ward 2 needs attention from DPR staff to identify and resolve issues in their programming. At the center level, Volta Park and Friends of Carter Barton both had some of the lowest scores, which indicate additional training or attention needed. If time and staffing allows, Langdon Park should also receive additional training because they had scores slightly above 3 out of 4, the third lowest scores in the city. Additionally, all programs should train instructors in methods to allow participants an active voice during instructional time.
recreation programs can play an important role in lowering economic costs at the societal level, in addition to improving individual behavioral and health outcomes.
Youth in the District of Columbia

In Washington, DC, youth are at higher risk for certain negative outcomes in comparison to their counterparts at the national level. For example, DC high school students have a higher prevalence of negative health outcomes and behaviors in comparison to U.S. high school students including: having been in a physical fight, attempted suicide, tried marijuana before age 13, sexual debut before age 13, missed physical education classes, are overweight, and have been diagnosed with asthma (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2011). For example, DC children aged 10 to 17 years old have an overweight rate of over 35%, which is higher than the national average of 31% (CYITC, 2011). In addition, the percentage of children found to have one or more mental, emotional or developmental conditions such as: anxiety, depression, developmental delay or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was higher at 16.9% than the national average of 14% (CYITC, 2011). Furthermore, over half of DC children are from single parent households and over 20% live in poverty. It should be noted that there is variability with regard to demographic and socioeconomic factors between the Wards. This variability illustrates where within DC the need for youth recreation programs, which have the potential to improve youth behavioral and health outcomes, are greatest. For example, Ward 8, the least affluent Ward where 48% of children live in poverty, has the highest percentage of African American residents (94%) and children (30%). Ward 3, the most affluent Ward, has the highest number of White residents (78%) and lowest number of Black residents (5.6%) and around three percent of children live in poverty (CYITC, 2011).
Overview of District of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation

DPR was established to provide DC residents and visitors with accessibility to excellent recreation and leisure services. DPR oversees and preserves DC parks, community facilities, swimming pools, recreation centers, and also organizes recreation programs. Such programs include sports leagues, youth development, therapeutic recreation, aquatic programming, outdoor adventure, camping, and senior citizen activities. Further, DPR offers various programs and facilities that are available for individuals with disabilities (DPR, 2012). Part of DPRs mission is to enhance the quality of life and wellness of DC residents and visitors by providing equal access to affordable and quality recreational services. DPR works to fulfill this mission is through year round and summer programs (DPR, 2012). Camps are offered at over 80 recreation centers across the District (DPR, 2012). Unlike the variation across Wards of access to parks and grocery stores, access to recreation centers is fairly equal across Wards. This makes the Summer Camp Program an ideal tool for improving DC youth behavioral and health outcomes like educational performance, positive social attitudes, conflict resolution skills, mental health, and obesity rates (CYITC, 2011).
With a goal of engaging the minds and bodies of DC youth, it is critical that the Summer Camp Program is periodically evaluated to identify areas for enhancement and to ensure the Programs goal is met and is in line with DPRs mission. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess if the DPR Summer Camp Program is being implemented properly and to aid DPR in developing Best Practices for implementing the Summer Camp Program. Additionally, DPR is interested in evaluating whether Summer Camp Programs are meeting their youth outcomes (CYITC, 2012).
Description of the Programs

Each year, approximately 3,000 youth, aged 3 to 13 years, participate in the Summer Camp Program through DC Department of Parks and Recreation. The Summer Camp Program, offered in recreation centers across all eight DC Wards, provides children and adolescents from DC and the surrounding areas with a wide variety of activities that are geared toward engaging participants minds and bodies throughout the summer months. The activities that are offered include but are not limited to swimming, basketball, soccer, crafts, and environmental exploration. For example, the Little Explorers camp offers crafts, games, field trips, and swimming. Additionally, the Aqua Day Camp offers basic swimming and water safety skill lessons (DPR, 2012). The recreation and community centers in each Ward generally offer different activities based on the demographics and need in that Ward. In addition, DPR collaborates with community groups and organizations to further enhance the diversity of the camp programs. For example, the Achieve Camp is offered in Ward 8, where the obesity rate is over 40% and 48% of youth live in poverty. The Achieve Camp is a triathlon camp that teaches fitness, nutrition skills, and promotes discipline and self-confidence. The Achieve Camp also provides free breakfast and lunch through the DC Free Summer Meals Program (DPR, 2012). There are six and nine-week camps offered from June through August, each with three and five sessions. Each session is two weeks in duration with the exception of the first session (five-day session) of the nine week camp. DPR offers a resident reduced rate to ensure all DC youth are able to participate in the program regardless of their familys income (DPR, 2012). During the Summer of 2012, DPR offered 106 camps, up from 93 in 2011. This is a 10% increase in the number of camps offered from 2011. DPR aimed to increase the variety of the types of camps offered with programs like Zumba, yoga, arts and craft, music and gardening (DPR testimony, 2012). All of the camps evaluated in this report are listed in Table 1 (see Appendix A).
For more information on CYITC visit http://www.cyitc.org
engagement with participants, staff professional conduct, atmosphere of inclusion, organization activities. The eight program areas include environment of physical and emotional safety, staff addressed appropriately in the overall structure of the program as well as in the individual strength, the Summer Camp Program evaluation focused on eight to ensure that they are Of the ten program areas focused on by PAAS for successful programming and organizational enhance compliance, and raise participant satisfaction. evaluation data, the site visit report provides information on how to strengthen the program, results were summarized and compiled into one document. In addition to the compiled well as participant engagement. Upon collecting the evaluation results from each session, the PAAS tool. The goal of administering the PAAS tool was to assess the quality of the program as providers, program managers, and specialists who collaborated with the Trust to administer the The 2012 DPR Summer Camp Program evaluation team was comprised of community services Identify safety concerns that need to be addressed immediately. Contribute to achieving specific program goals; and, Play the role of the granter and the developer with balance; Ensure the employment of the principles of positive youth development; Provide a uniform method for assembling programs and program staff; Identify programs that can be used as a model to other programs; Establish professional development and technical assistance; Give an external opinion on the strengths and challenges of a program; Create a standard definition for quality program;
and family serving programs.8 The goals included in the PAAS tool include: created with input from program providers, which evaluates and helps develop the work of youth defined by the Trust, the PAAS tool is a comprehensive set of instruments and procedures, technical assistance, youth staff training, educational opportunities, and policy support. 3 As the summer months, when school is not in session. Additionally, the Trust provides grants, expanding and improving services and opportunities for youth in the DC area, particularly during eight DC Wards. The PAAS tool was developed by CYITC, which serves as a resource for (PAAS) to measure program quality program quality in its 106 summer camp sessions across all The DPR Summer Camp Program utilized the Program Assessment and Assistance System benchmarks for process and outcome measures. and utilization (DPR Performance Plan, 2012). Therefore, this pilot evaluation seeks to provide measure the quality of each DPR program by focusing on performance, satisfaction, compliance outcome-based and focused on the user is to develop, a systematic evaluation process to A component of DPRs objective of providing equal access programs that are high quality
10
and planning of program day, environment of intentional instruction, staff promotion of participant voice and choice, and physical environment and materials (CYITC, 2012).
11
Observations were completed through the PAAS tool that evaluators used to give a numerical score based on the questions given in the form. Participant surveys had scaled questions to determine their level of response to the questions, and the information was then quantified. Information on participants age, education, race/ethnicity, and Ward in which they reside, were also provided by in order to provide a scope of the population being represented in these programs. Demographics of the participants were collected through the data management system and compiled into a spreadsheet for analysis. Lastly, youth were given the One City Youth Surveys which were used to assess youth outcomes. The PAAS tool was chosen by DPR administrators for its ability to evaluate and help develop youth programs. The advantages of PAAS are its comprehensive, multifaceted structure that incorporates both observational tools and interviews. By collecting various programming, organization, and participation information, the PAAS can identify sections that excel and those that require improvement. The PAAS contains sections for each of the eight program areas and is divided into four grade levels of observable characteristics of program quality, with a page to note strengths and challenges for each area. Indicators that characterize poor program quality for that area are found in the first level, adequate program quality in the second, generally strong program quality in the third, and outstanding program quality in the fourth. Each activity is then given a grade level. A work plan at the end of the tool outlines the desired outcome, program activity, activity observed, and whether progress towards the outcomes are being made. Strengths, challenges, and recommendations of the program are then recorded. Observations of the environment of physical and emotional safety include the staff to youth ratio, staff supervision, staff conflict resolution, staff and participant interaction, staff application of rules, participant interaction, confidentiality, and staff communication with participants. Observations of staff engagement with participants include behavioral control, staff engagement, staff facilitation, staff tone, and participation recognition. Observations of staff professional conduct include staff attitude towards work, participation management, and average of observed indicators. Observations of inclusion include participant engagement, activities, and average of observed indicators. Observations of organization and planning of program day include activities and programming, staff preparedness, role of youth and staff in program atmosphere, and average of observed indicators. Observations of environmental of intentional instruction include learning goals, staff communication of instructions, staff check-in with participants, and participant guidance. Observations of staff promotion of voice and choice include participant leadership opportunities and staff responsiveness. Observations of the physical environment and materials include temperature, acoustics, seating, accessibility and staff and participant comfort with materials.
12
The interview tools included in PAAS were designed for Younger Youth (Ages 5-13) and Older Youth (14 to 24 years). The interview tool is divided in two nearly identical sections, one for program use and one for facilitator use. Program contacts do not have access to the facilitator youth interview to protect the confidentiality of the youth. Facilitators are requested to follow several instructions. They must coordinate interview times with the program contact to find the most convenient and least disruptive time to conduct the interview that should last no more than 30 minutes. The observers, not the program contact, must choose the interviewees to minimize bias. Interviews are preferably conducted in groups of 3 to 5 youth (with a maximum 7), in a separate space without distractions or presence of any program staff. Program officers must explain who they are, what theyre trying to do, and why input is important. They must stress the confidentiality of everything they say. If questions are not understood, even after rewording, officers are to skip to the next question. Finally, they are to attribute only praise directly to the youth, and include any concerns or criticisms as part of their own observations to avoid any potential punishment. Interviews ask questions about youth engagement, voice and choice, structure, safety, and youth motivation. With the exception of notes on the facilitators interview regarding staff willingness to grant access to participants for interview and participants grasp of the questions and ability to respond, the program and facilitator interviews are the same. Confidentiality has been controlled for throughout implementation of the PAAS tool. Participant names were not recorded, and the use of group interviews, not attributing negatives to youth and not attributing any comments to specific youth all utilized to maintain confidentiality. The monitoring and observation timeline varied between the six- and nine-week camps. Evaluations began for the six-week camps between June 25th and 29th and ended between July 30th and August 3rd. For the nine-week camps evaluation began between June 18th and 22nd and ended between August 13th and 17th. During the first two weeks of the program, a cycle of monitoring, structured observations, the reception of observation feedback, and continued monitoring took place. Administrators provided a copy of the PAAS tool to site managers or leads at the beginning of the evaluation. To ensure consistency and objectivity, administrators were encouraged to observe for the same attributes detailed in the PAAS tool and to record structured observations on the same day. Following the structured observation, a meeting was set up for the following week to provide feedback to the camp facilitator and site lead. The youth survey was provided to the youth the last week of camps.
13
these summer programs on a quantitative scale that allows an appropriate data analysis. these surveys provided the users perspective on how they evaluated their personal experience in was already identified in the survey allowing minimal error in computing the values. Analyzing This analysis process was not subject to information bias or misclassification because the data then projected into charts to summarize results that included only responses that were recordable. opportunities to participate, and how much they learned during their camp program. Data was answers from completed surveys in their satisfaction, likelihood of recommendation, each participant in the program. Results of the data were analyzed by compiling the quantitative One City Youth Surveys were conducted and analyzed to determine the overall experience of DPR. not truly represent the evaluation of each program and the overall strengths and weaknesses of evaluators for different programs. As such, the results of the data could have been influenced and affect the results of the analysis since scores were completed and calculated by different information that was provided. In addition, there was potential observational bias that could Therefore, the data can only provide limited results to conclude only findings based on the categories. For example, data on Ward 8 consisted of only two of the nine evaluation forms. some programs, indicating a less overall summary of the programs when broken down to specific the quality of their program. Potential weaknesses of the analysis include missing data from ensure that each recreational center has identified the strengths and weaknesses and determine evaluation shows an appropriate representation of the overall goals and objectives of PAAS to were already identified by their programs and Wards. Based on the methods of analysis, the methods of analysis were not subject to information bias or misclassification because scores each program by an external observer. Numbers were recalculated to ensure minimal error, and Analysis from the PAAS observations provides DPR a standard and consistent method of scoring through the comments given by the observers. data, the qualitative data was also compiled by the areas of programming and organization consisted of positive and negative results based on the evaluations. Along with the quantitative interest with the highest and lowest average scores were identified to determine where programs individual campsite, and by the areas of programming and organization. In addition, areas of computed based on the values given. Average scores were analyzed and separated by Ward, each Scores range from grade levels one through four, with four being the highest, and averages were evaluators score in the PAAS tool and the numbers were gathered on an Excel spreadsheet. By gathering the observational evaluations from each site, data was computed based on the entry for consistency and missing data. significant patterns in the data for DPR summer programs. The evaluation team reviewed data Excel spreadsheet to analyze the data through averages and displayed in figures to determine any information about the Summer Camp Programs. All information was provided by DPR in an Data analysis included evaluations from observations and participant surveys to summarize
14
The youth surveys offer an appropriate method to analyze the overall experience for the program from an internal point of view. The quantitative data from these surveys of scaled answers allows the evaluation to analyze areas where the programs succeeded or needs improvement. The One City Youth Survey captured 522 out of 5591 campers, indicating the lack of data that might not fully represent the population of campers in the DPR summer programs. However, data provided from the surveys still manages to represent 21 recreational centers to a certain degree, making it still valuable information for the evaluation.
15
Figure 2. Race Distribution of Youth Camp Participants.
Figure 1. Age Distribution of Youth Camp Participants broken down by age ranges.
participants respectively. However, there were at least 350 participants from each Ward overall. participants with (n=1,106 or 19.8%), followed by Ward 7 and 5, which had 890 and 814 completed at least elementary school education (See Figures 1 and 2). Ward 4 had the most Figure 1). About one third of participants are Black or African American and over 80% have of the DPR Summer Camp Program participants are between the ages of 5 and 9 years (See DPR served 5,591 participants through their traditional summer programs. Over 70% (n=5,591)
Demographics
16
Figure 3. Completed Education Levels of Youth Camp Participants.
Figure 4. Ward Distribution of Youth Camp Participants.
Program Quality
Data from the PAAS Surveys were completed and analyzed for 30 recreational centers in the Summer Camp Programs. Overall compiled results from the PAAS are shown in Figure 5. As seen, DPR Summer Camps were successful in all the areas that PAAS considered to be important according to the evaluator. Camps scoring the highest in programming and organizational areas were the Hardy Rec Center (Soccer and Flag Football, Ward 3), Ferebee Home Center (Youth Visions, Ward 8), and Fort Davis Community Center (Soccer, Ward 7). These centers had high ratings in the staff relations and the inclusion atmosphere. Lowest scores were found in Volta Park Rec Center (Kickball, Ward 2), Hillcrest Friends and Carter Baron (Friends of Carter Baron, Ward 7), and Langdon
17
Park Community Center (Ward 5) (Figure 6). These locations were found throughout the Wards, so there was no pattern in the location of these campsites. By Ward, the lowest score was found in Ward 2, but the remaining Wards scored above 3.0 and Ward 8 had the highest scoring overall. However, these are based on the raw data given. Some sites did not provide results of evaluation; therefore full evaluation based on the Ward cannot be completed due to missing data.
Figure 5. Average Scores from Evaluator Observations by Program Areas.
Table 1. Top and Bottom Averaged Scores According to Programming and Organizational Areas.
18
Figure 6. Average Scores from Evaluators Observations by each Ward.
Youth Satisfaction
Based on the information gathered from the participants, the following section summarizes their responses on the Youth Camp Surveys. Overall, over 60% of campers were satisfied with their program, about 68% are always likely to recommend the camps to others (See Figures 7 and 8).
19
Figure 7. Youth Camp Participants Satisfaction Survey.
Figure 8. Youth Camp Participants Likelihood of Recommendation.
20
PAAS Qualitative Data

Comments were given by the evaluators for each programming and organizational area. Each area had comments from the recreational centers that the evaluators added when they conducted their observations. Common themes were summarized from the evaluators comments and identified to determine the overall strengths and weaknesses in each area that were seen in a majority of the camp sites. Program Provides Physical and Emotional Safety Strengths: Appropriate staff to camper ratio; Staff provided safe environment; Programs were inclusive and provided openness Weaknesses: Acoustics were not conducive to hearing/listening to instructions; lack of appropriate spacing for activities Staff Relates to/Engages With All Participants Strengths: Energetic staff that was engaging; Use of proper examples as teaching lessons; Staff communicated effectively Weaknesses: Behavior control; Staff not assuring if campers re-entering the site were active Staff Exhibits Appropriate/Professional Conduct at All Times Strengths: Staff demonstrated professionalism and understanding of policies to campers Weaknesses: Participant management; Reported use of cell phones during activities Atmosphere of Inclusion Strengths: Staff engaged all campers in the activities regardless of language or capabilities; Staff was able to create roles in activities to include everyone Weaknesses: Need for more equipment and materials for participation in beginning of activities Program Day is Planned and Organized Strengths: Staff member was organized in giving clear instructions of their plan; Lessons prepared for the day and clearly posted Weaknesses: Need more preparation completed before day begins; Lacking materials; Need better transition between activities Intentional Instruction Appropriate/Clear Steps to Learning or Skill Acquisition Strengths: Campers were given chances to lead activities and be creative; Staff was able to provide guidance Weaknesses: Behavioral and participation issues Promotes Participant Voice and Choice Strengths: Good use of bulletin boards; Staff was able to adjust when campers voiced their concerns Weaknesses: Facility too loud for clear communication
21
Youth Outcomes
Figure 9. Percentage of Participants Feeling Safe During Their Program.
Using the One City Youth Survey, campers were asked about their opinion of their opportunities in participation, what lessons they learned during camp, and the life skills they learned from the camp program. Overall, 30 to 50% of participants always found opportunities to do something new, go to new places, and make friends. However, 30 to 50%never found opportunities to talk with an adult about life, school, and personal issues (See Figure 10). Well over 80%of participants believe that they either learned a lot or a little about lessons from the camp such as respect for others, being responsible, working with others, etc. (See Figure 11). Results from the survey question about life lessons had varied responses based on the program these campers attended. For instance, there was a low level of learning in art/music abilities and computer knowledge, which are not concepts covered in all of the programs. However, areas covering lessons relating to all programs (time management, making healthy decisions, solving life problems, saying no to drugs and alcohol, and reaching goals) campers responded with over 30%positive results (See Figure 12).
22
Figure 10. Participants Personal View of Their Opportunities in Participating.
Figure 11. Personal Evaluation of Lessons Learned After Attending the Camp.
23
Figure 12. Life Skills Learned According to Participants After Attending the Camp.
24
steps for learning. Ferebee Hope Center they need to focus on providing campers intentional instructions and clear other categories. The top centers should focus on planning and organization of each day. At well on these two categories is important to the overall camper experience, as they feed into the centers all scored 4 out of 4 on staff professionalism and an atmosphere of inclusion. Scoring Nearly all of the centers met the PAAS objectives. As Table 1 shows the top three recreation the areas most in need. instructors and city officials, ensuring issues are resolved and resources are properly allocated to addressed within the program. Valid survey instruments, like PAAS, provide helpful feedback to Camp Program is meeting its goals and provide a clear picture of where issues need to be programmatic trends over time at the recreation centers. The data will show how the Summer what they intend to measure. Continued use of the PAAS tool will also allow DPR to track PAAS tool is highly recommended as this survey is validated to ensure the questions measure time or money, and the tool saves time on observations and data entry. Continued use of the errors is lower. Training Ward managers on PAAS 2.0 tool should not require much additional entered an invalid score for a given section, or mistakes in data entry because the opportunity for scoring. Adoption of this tool may also resolve issues in data collection where an interviewer 2.0 tool released in 2010. This tool has a streamlined design with fewer questions and easier Since the Ward managers are trained on the PAAS tool, DPR should consider using the PAAS more in-depth knowledge insight into how the program functioned. classes are clustered into similar categories, then an evaluation of those categories could provide whether based on the PAAS tool or not, so all teachers can work towards those objectives. If across the different camps. DPR should communicate citywide objectives early to all instructors, class than a creative writing class, which are just two examples of the variety of activities offered professional instruction, and an atmosphere of inclusion. But these might look different in a judo Certainly, all instructors can aspire to the PAAS objectives, including providing students a voice, instructors may focus more on their stated camp goals than on meeting the PAAS objectives. PAAS is helpful. The downside of using an instrument across all of these programs is that children a safe and educational experience during the summer, an evaluation instrument like recreation centers. Given the wide range of programs focused on providing Washington, DC The PAAS tool provided DPR with common objectives across programs, ages, instructors, and
Process Discussion and Recommendations
given for progressing the DPRs summer camp evaluations in the future. and outcome recommendations emerged. These findings will be discussed and recommendation programs were evaluated on those objectives. Once the programs were evaluated, several process easily lend itself for evaluation. The commonality of all the programs was the PAAS tool, so tool. The diversity of programs offered to a wide range of children during the summer does not The DPR Summer Camp Programs scored well in their objectives as they relate to the PAAS
25
Also seen in Table 1, the lower ranked centers did well on providing an atmosphere of inclusion, but there were discrepancies between related indicators. For example, Volta Park scored a 3 out of 4 on atmosphere of inclusion, but they scored a 1.75 out of 4 on promoting participant voice and choice. Likewise at Hillcrest staff received a 1.67 out of 4 on professional conduct, but they scored a 3.15 out of 4 on providing clear instructions to the participants. These indicators on the tool are related, but the scores were quite distinct from one another. Interestingly, Walker Jones held a youth motivation and self-empowerment camp program, but they only scored 2.88 out of 4 in having participants encouraged to voice their opinions. While the low score may be due to unique circumstances at the time of the observation, it is concerning that a camp specifically designed to empower youth did not appear to provide participants a clear voice. The PAAS survey observations had a protocol provided to all observers. Unfortunately, due to extenuating circumstances of severe weather and power outages, only one of two planned structured observations were completed at each site. To ensure comparability across summer evaluations in forthcoming years, we recommend completing the plan of action to the best of DPRs ability. If unforeseen circumstances occur, evaluations should be rescheduled for accuracy and a more complete evaluation of the programs in question. Since instructor actions and participant behavior naturally fluctuates on any given day, conducting two observations for each class during the summer will mitigate these changes. With only one observation, the possibility of interviewer bias is likely. Since there was variability in the recreation center scores, the likelihood of interviewer bias seems small. However, in order to reduce possible bias by the Ward manager observing their own programs, we recommend DPR staff from the main office conduct assessments of programs. The uniformity will also ensure the questions are similarly interpreted and answered. For example, concepts like intentional instruction can be interpreted numerous ways, having one or two well-trained people with clear definitions doing the observations would reduce interviewer bias. With the majority of recreation centers meeting or exceeding performance objectives, the summer programs appear to be fulfilling their mission. We recommend continuing on the current path to further improve summer programming for children throughout the city, while honing in on the programs that need adjustments. Citywide the Summer Camp Program needs to focus on promoting participants voice and choice and intentional instruction and clear steps to learning skills. Amongst the Wards, Ward 2 needs attention from DPR staff to identify and resolve issues in their programming. At the center level, Volta Park and Friends of Carter Barton both had some of the lowest scores, which indicate additional training or attention needed. If time and staffing allows, Langdon Park should also receive additional training because they had scores slightly above 3 out of 4, the third lowest scores in the city. For the upcoming summer, all programs should train instructors in methods to allow participants an active voice during instructional time.
Outcome Discussion and Recommendations

Along with the Ward manager-completed observation, DPR conducted participant surveys to see how the children learned, what they experienced, and how the program helped them. Based on the survey responses, the DPR Summer Camp met their objectives of providing a positive,
26
educational experience to DC youth. The summer camp program received high praise from over 500 participants who completed the One City Youth Survey. As Figure 7 shows, 90% of the youth who responded said they were always or sometimes satisfied with their experience. The Summer Camps also received positive feedback from 85.4 % of participants (see Figure 8) who would definitely or maybe recommend the program to their friends. These findings should encourage DPR to continue with and build upon their programming. Looking ahead to Summer 2013, DPR should continue with the same One City Youth Survey instrument with focus on reaching a representative sample of the total youth participant population. Continuing with the same survey will allow DPR to track trends across programs, ages, wards, and programmatic years. DPRs Summer Camp Program aims to provide a safe learning environment for participants, at which the findings show they succeeded. As seen in Figure 10, when participants were asked what types of opportunities the summer program gave them, over half of respondents said it allowed them to make new friends, do new things, and see new places. The three responses with the lowest scores were for participants talking with adults about life, school, or personal issues. Over half of the respondents said this was not part of their summer camp experience at all. If DPR aims to have youth talk more personally about school and life, there may be formal and informal ways to encourage those conversations. Camps can include specific time for youth to talk with their instructors, the youth-instructor ratio may need to be lower, or youth may need explicit instructions about the safety of sharing information with their instructors. The high marks from the One City Youth Survey come from less than 10% of the total camp participants. This response rate may not have biased the outcome, but there is the possibility the youth who returned the survey are not representative of the total youth population who participated in the Summer Camps. For example, youth dissatisfied with their experience may have opted out causing the numbers to skew higher than reality. Or one Ward may have a higher response rate from fewer participants than another Ward that had more youth participants. Obtaining a representative sample of all of the youth participants will minimize biases based on identifiers like Ward, recreation center, age, and gender. At times stratified surveys are useful where researchers ensure sub-populations within the whole are represented proportional to their presence in the total population. This method was described well by researchers looking at American Camp Association (ACA) camps; they used stratified analysis to ensure the surveyed camps represented the spectrum of all ACA camps (Thurber, 2007). Stratifying the sample provided a clearer picture of the camps and made the results generalizable to all ACA camps. For further information on representative sampling, the Health Resources and Services Administration provides basic information and suggestions on this topic (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2012). Another lesson pulled from Figure 12 is participants consistently learned some lessons identified in the survey but not others. If DPR wants participants to learn certain skills, such as talking with adults about personal issues or dealing with stress, then we recommend having instructors explicitly repeat those goals to the youth throughout the summer.
27
General Recommendations
DPR wisely chose evidence-based surveys like PAAS and the One City Youth Survey, and the continued use of those instruments is recommended to minimize future training time and to see participant trends over time. To improve the evaluation process, DPR should centralize the data collection process and develop a data cleaning process. DPR will benefit from designating one person or office to handle all of the data management for the department, which streamlines the process and ensures staff does not waste time looking for surveys in other offices. A data coordinator at DPR who receives all of the surveys would examine them for accuracy and understanding on the part of the respondents. The data coordinator should be well versed in statistics and able to identify important biases within the surveys. For example, ordinal data such as the Likert Scale used in the One City Youth Survey makes identifying bias introduced by outliers more difficult to detect, making the data coordinator position more important (Liu, Wu, Zumbo 2010). Similarly, any anecdotal evidence collected through written comments or comments shared with the data coordinator should play a role only after quantitative measures are examined. Since DPR uses evidence-based surveys, the best data will likely come from those questions, and written responses can reinforce conclusions or indicate that more data analysis may be required. Finally, DPR should clarify their Summer Camp Program goals and widely train instructors and recreation center managers on these goals, while respecting individual camps objectives. The PAAS and One City Youth Surveys each have a list of desired outcomes for the camp, and they compare diverse programs with a wide range of goals on overarching objectives that may not have been expressed to instructors or participants. Between the One City Youth Survey and PAAS survey, there are myriad goals for the participants to learn or experience and for the instructors to fulfill. Given the range of programs - from judo to creative writing - explicitly stating four to five city and program-wide objectives to center managers, instructors, and participants would make reaching those objectives more likely. While each instructor, class, and recreation center will still have their goals for their course, training and encouragement on the overarching goals of the Summer Camp will improve the likelihood that they are reached by the instructors and reflected in the participant surveys. This adjustment should not require large programmatic changes, but simply a clear articulation of the standards on which programs will be evaluated during and after the summer. Overall, the DPR Summer Camp Program was successful in meeting its objectives. DPR is using validated, evidence-based surveys, which provide the more accurate responses. The Summer Program will be solidly positioned for reliable and valid survey results after training adjustments to explicitly state the Summer Camp program objectives, possible reordering of the responses in the One City Youth Survey, and the addition of a data coordinator to ensure surveys are organized and properly evaluated. Of these recommendations, the data coordinator may require hiring a new person or reconfiguring an existing position to handle surveys for the entire department. Creating this position for the department will ensure information is properly evaluated and results are cycled back into the department, making it more efficient.
28
from: http://educ.ubc.ca/faculty/zumbo/papers/Liu_Wu_Zumbo_Rating_scale_Outliers_EPM_reprint.pdf Number 5 pp. 5-21. Retrieved Reliability: Ordinal/Rating Scale Item Responses. Education and Psychology Measurement. Volume 70, Liu, Y., Wu, A., Zumbo, B. (2010). The Impact of Outliers on Cronbachs Coefficient Alpha Estimate of from: http://bphc.hrsa.gov/policiesregulations/performancemeasures/patientsurvey/calculating.html Health and Human Services. Retrieved Health Resources and Services Administration. (2012). Calculating Sample Size. US Department of p+Handbook http://dpr.dc.gov/DC/DPR/Programs+and+Services/Youth+Camps/DPR+Summer+Camps/Summer+Cam DC Department of Parks and Recreation. (2012). Summer Camp Handbook. Retrieved from: from: http://www.tommywells.org/2012-09-2012,%20Testimony%20Jesus%20Aguirre,%20Director.pdf planning: testimony of Jesus Aguirre, director, department of parks and recreation. Retrieved DC Department of Parks and Recreation. (2012). Committee on libraries, parks, recreation, and from: http://oca.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oca/publication/attachments/DPR12.pdf DC Department of Parks and Recreation. (2012). FY 2012 Performance Plan. Retrieved DC Department of Parks and Recreation. (2012). Home. Retrieved from: http://dpr.dc.gov/DC/DPR http://www.cyitc.org/elements/file/Needs%20Assessment%20Executive%20Summary.pdf Washington, DC Youth. Retrieved from: Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC). (2011). Needs and Assets Assessment of n.pdf. http://www.cyitc.org/elements/file/Grantee%20Institute%202010/FY11%20PAAS%202.0%20Presentatio Getting Back to the Why, PAAS 2.0. Retrieved from: Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation. (2010). Citywide Youth Development Conference: Vision. Retrieved from: http://www.cyitc.org/about/default.asp Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC). (2012). About the Trust: The Trust and Its Fact Sheets. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/factsheets/index.htm#compare Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Adolescent and School Health: Youth Risk Behavior from: http://66.39.39.113/upa_publications/jus/2009may/JUS_Bangor_May2009.pdf Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies. Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 114-123. Retrieved Bangor, A, Kortum, P, and Miller, J. (2009). Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an
29
Mowen, A.J., Payne, L.L., Orsega-Smith E., & Godbey, G.C. (2009). Assessing the Health Partnership Practices of Park and Recreation Agencies: Findings and Implications from a National Survey. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Volume 27, Number 3 pp. 116-131. Retrieved from: https://illinois.edu/lb/files/2012/04/18/39239.pdf National Park and Recreation Association. (2010). The Rationale for Recreation Services for Youth: An Evidenced Based Approach. Retrieved from: http://www.americasbackyard.org/uploadedFiles/Americas_Backyard/Witt-Caldwell-Research%20PaperFinal-lores.pdf Thurber, C.A., Scanlon, M.M., Scheuler, L., Henderson, K.A. (2007). Youth Development Outcomes of the Camp Experience: Evidence for Multidimensional Growth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Volume 36, pp. 241-254. Retrieved from: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/855/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10964-006-91426.pdf?auth66=1354830472_978ed2f8d4ab107fa3566ab18174edaf&ext=.pdf.
30
Camp Aqua Day Traditions Heritage and Camp Basketball Camp Cheer Camp Achieve Immersion Spanish Camp Sports MultiCamp Career Teen Camp Discovery Camp Sports MultiExplorers Little Ward 3 Camp Career Teen Camp Basketball Camp Discovery Immersion Spanish Visual Arts REC Camp
Camp IMAGE Camp Soccer
Camp Aqua Day
REC Camp
Camp Tween
Services Life Family Community REC Camp
Camp Fashion
the Future Hands on
Camp Discovery
Journalism
Camp Discovery
Visions Youth
Explorers Little Ward 1
Camp Discovery Ward 6
Camp Achieve Ward 8
Table 1: DPR Camps Included in Evaluation by Ward
Appendix A:
31
B. Evaluation Team Biographies

Leslie Deroo is a Global Health Design, Monitoring and Evaluation MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Sciences. Prior to graduate school Leslie taught high school government in Oakland, CA and worked in Liberia, Cameroon, and Jordan on water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) issues. Currently, Leslie is the WASH in Schools Fellow at WASH Advocates in Washington, DC. Leslie has been on evaluation teams with at the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice and at WASH Advocates. Jamie Gulin is a Health Promotion MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. Currently, Jamie is a Program Analyst with the Veterans Health Administration, where she monitors and evaluates data on programs and initiatives for returning service members and veterans. Jamie was previously a Program Analyst for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (NIA), Office of Special Populations. At NIA, she worked on training programs for pre and postdoctoral researchers in aging and health disparities in aging. Mike Hopewell is a Global Environmental Health MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. Before beginning his MPH, Mike worked in Lilongwe, Malawi as a volunteer coordinator for the organization Ministry of Hope. In his second semester at GWU Mike was part of a cohort of students that spent a semester in Kisumu, Kenya studying with Kenyan students and working with local organizations. Upon his return, Mike worked as a research assistant for WASH advocates in Washington, DC. This January he will begin an internship with the International Housing Coalition. Marissa Jaross is a Global Health Communications MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. Prior to beginning her studies in Washington, D.C., Marissa lived on the South island of New Zealand and worked for a consulting firm doing due diligence. She graduated in 2005 with a Bachelors degree in Anthropology from the University of Colorado at Boulder. In the spring, Marissa will pursue her passion of working with underserved populations with a communications internship with El Porvenir, which is a Nicaraguan Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene NGO. Carle Nowakowski is a Marketing and Communications MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. In her previous experience, Carle worked for the Alachua County Health Department in Gainesville, Florida as a Tobacco Prevention Specialist. After completing a Bachelors of Health Science in Health ScienceRehabilitative Services from the University of Florida, Carle started her MPH degree. Carle currently works for Rebuilding Together, a national safe and healthy housing organization.
32
Nada Raoof is an Environmental Health Science and Policy MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, where she is currently researching regulatory toxicology. After receiving her Bachelor of Science in Public Health at The George Washington University, Nada participated in the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics Occupational Health Internship Program, working with the Filipino Community Center to research Filipino caregiver health and safety. Victoria Ta is an Epidemiology MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Sciences. In her previous experience, Victoria interned for the Carolinas Medical Center (CMC) by evaluating and analyzing patient and physician satisfaction in CMC hospitals. After completing a Bachelors of Science in Public Health at UNC Charlotte, Victoria started her MPH degree and is currently the Graduate Coordinator for George Washington Universitys Tutoring Initiative Program and a volunteer for the STD Self-Test project at Whitman Walker Gay Mens Health Clinic. Michelle Tripken is a Health Policy MPH Candidate at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. Currently, Michelle is a Senior Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Analyst at TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) within the Department of Defense. She is also an Awards Director for the Special Olympics in the District of Columbia for both the fall and summer games. In her previous experience, Michelle worked at a consulting firm where she planned leadership workshops and seminars for nurses at hospitals throughout the United States.
33
The District of Columbia One City Summer Initiative

Findings for Summer 2012
October 2012
Presented to: The Honorable Vincent C. Gray Mayor, District of Columbia
Prepared by: Ed Davies One City Summer Coordinator/Vice-President of External Affairs Nisha Sachdev, DrPh Research and Evaluation Manager DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT ..................................................... iv DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT AGENCIES/OFFICES...................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 4 2012 ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE PLANNING .............................................................. 5 Overview of the 2012 One City Summer Initiative ......................................................................... 5 Planning Process .......................................................................................................................... 5 2012 One City Summer Initiative Components .............................................................................. 6 Component 1: Citywide Summer Goals for Youth .............................................................................. 6 Component 2: Target Area Strategy .................................................................................................... 6 Component 3: Older and/or Disconnected Youth Strategy.................................................................. 7 Component 4: Data Collection and Evaluation Strategy ..................................................................... 8 ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE: CITYWIDE GOALS FOR YOUTH .................................. 9 Table 1: Number and Percentage of Programs and Youth by Goal ..................................................... 9 Figure 1: One City Summer Initiative 2012 Goals by Youth Age ................................................... 10 ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE: PROGRAMS AND EVENTS .......................................... 11 District Government Agency One City Summer Initiative Programs ............................................ 11 Table 2: OCSI 2012 Summer Programs Operated by DC Government AgenciesGoals, Youth, Sites, and Programs ............................................................................................................................. 11 DC Public Library OCSI Programs .................................................................................................... 12 DC Public Schools OCSI Programs .................................................................................................... 12 Department of Employment Services OCSI Programs ....................................................................... 12 Department of Parks and Recreation OCSI Programs ........................................................................ 12 Metropolitan Police Department OCSI Programs............................................................................... 13 Office of the State Superintendent of Education OCSI Programs ...................................................... 13 Community-Based Organizations One City Summer Programs .................................................... 13 Table 3: Trust-funded Youth and Programs by Goal, Number and Percentage................................. 13 One City Summer Initiative Events ............................................................................................. 14 Figure 2: Number of OCSI Events by Goal ....................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Number of Events for Youth and Families by DC Government Agency ............................ 15 ONE CITY SUMMER CRIME INITIATIVE AND TARGET AREAS ...................................... 16
Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Summer Programming in Target Areas ....................................................................................... 16 Table 5: Five Summer Crime Initiative Target Areas ........................................................................ 16 Table 6: Total Number of Children and Youth Served in Programs located in Summer Crime Initiative Areas by SCI........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 4: Youth Participation by Age by Target Area ..................................................................... 17 MPD Summer Crime Initiative in Target Areas ........................................................................... 17 Table 7: Number of Juvenile Arrests in All SCI Areas (Calendar Years 2011 and 2012) ................ 18 Agency Walkthroughs in Target Areas ........................................................................................ 18 Table 8: Number of Issues identified by Target Area ........................................................................ 18 Table 9: Number of Issues by Government Agency .......................................................................... 19 ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE: FINDINGS .................................................................... 20 Overview of Methods ................................................................................................................. 20 One City Summer Initiative Youth Participants ........................................................................... 20 Characteristics of One City Summer Initiative Youth Program Participants .................................. 20 Characteristics of Youth Survey Respondents .............................................................................. 21 Table 10: Demographic Characteristics of Youth Program Participants and Survey Respondents (unduplicated).................................................................................................................................... 22 Youth Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 23 Learning Opportunities and Satisfaction............................................................................................. 23 Table 11: Learning Opportunities and Satisfaction Reported by Youth (unduplicated).................... 24 Youth Outcomes ................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 5: Workforce Development Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses ...................................... 25 Figure 6: Academic Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses ............................................................. 26 Figure 7: Healthy Lifestyles Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses ................................................ 27 Figure 8: Safety Outcomes by Age, A lot and Always Responses ............................................. 28 Figure 9: Strengthening Families Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses ........................................ 29 Table 12: Responses to Survey Questions by Youth (unduplicated) ................................................. 30 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 33 Planning and Implementation ..................................................................................................... 33 Program Offerings ...................................................................................................................... 33 Data Collection/Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 34 Collaboration ............................................................................................................................. 34 Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 ii
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 36 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 37
iii
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT

CBO CYITC, Trust DC OCSI OST PSA SAS SCI SYEP WON Community-Based Organization DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation District of Columbia and Washington, DC One City Summer Initiative Out-of-School Time Police Service Area Statistical Analysis System Summer Crime Initiative DC Summer Youth Employment Program We Own the Night Initiative
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT AGENCIES/OFFICES

CFSA CJCC DCHA DCNG DCOA DCPCS DCPL DCPS DCRA DCSC DCYAC DDOT DHS DMH DOES DOH DPW DYRS FEMS HSEMA MPD OAG ONE OSSE OUC OVS/JGA SERVE DC UDC Child and Families Services Agency Criminal Justice Coordinating Council DC Housing Authority DC National Guard DC Office on Aging DC Public Charter Schools DC Public Library DC Public Schools Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs DC Superior Court DC Youth Advisory Council District Department of Transportation Department of Human Services Department of Mental Health Department of Employment Services Department of Health Department of Public Works Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Metropolitan Police Department Office of the Attorney General Office of Neighborhood Engagement Office of the State Superintendent of Education Office of Unified Communications Office of Victim Services/Justice Grants Administration Serve DC University of the District of Columbia
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2011, Mayor Gray instituted a cross-agency approach to summer programming. Safety and structure for children, youth, and families were hallmarks of this effort. Building on 2011, the 2012 One City Summer Initiative (OCSI) more clearly defined the citys approach to providing meaningful, safe, and engaging summer experiences for more than 40,227 youth, particularly the 8,099 who attended programs located in high-crime, target neighborhoods. Thoughtful collaborative planning among 28 District government agencies and programming across the 28 government agencies and more than 80 community-based partners was central to OCSI 2012. The initiative took a more focused approach to summer programming by identifying target neighborhoods, populations, and issues where significant summer investments could have major long-term impact. OCSI 2012 also developed clear service delivery objectives and concrete youth goals for the summer months. Finally, the effort piloted a robust data collection and evaluation framework that would enable policy makers, providers, partners, and parents, to understand the impact of this effort and highlight areas of growth potential. Goal-directed programming was new in 2012. District government agencies and community-based organizations (CBOs) funded under the summer initiative through the DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (the Trust) were required to incorporate one or more of citywide summer goals for youth. The five youth- and family-related goals undergirding OCSI were: 1. Workforce Development: Youth will gain meaningful work and career exposure, experience and skills. 2. Academic Achievement: Youth will increase their academic knowledge and skills and increase their chance of academic advancement. 3. Healthy Lifestyles: Youth will increasingly adopt healthy lifestyles. 4. Safety: Youth will have a safe summer experience. 5. Strengthening Families: Opportunities will be provided to strengthen youth and family bonds. Target neighborhood selection was also collaborative. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and OCSI steering committee looked at crime and social indicators to select five areas to saturate with policing and programming. Together, they programmed and staffed to reduce crime, improve neighborhood safety, and provide structured opportunities to learn and have fun. Older youth and homeless families sheltered at DC General Homeless Shelter (DC General) were also target populations. Teens and young adults were identified as needing special programming geared toward reconnecting them to the services, supports, and opportunities necessary for achieving success in school, in the workforce, and their transition into adulthood. Homeless children and youth participated in programming delivered at the DC General shelter.
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings The Trust coordinated OCSI 2012 with guidance from the Deputy Mayors for Public Safety and Justice; Health and Human Services; and Education. The Trust also took the primary responsibility for implementing the evaluation component. The findings from the 2012 summer programming indicate that the initiative was a success: The youth survey indicated that 96% of participating youth were satisfied with the type of programs and activities offered during the summer; and 71% would recommend the program to their friends. Violent crimes declined in the target areas: homicide (-70%); robbery (-15%); armed burglary (-25%). Juvenile arrests for select violent crimes also decreased by an average of 40% in the target areas. Highlights from OCSI 2012 include: Some 40,227 youth participated in 614 OCSI programs. The Department of Parks and Recreation and other sites served 26,000 daily meals through the DC Free Summer Meals Program during the six-week OCSI period. The Trust provided 96 grants totaling over $2.5 million to CBOs to operate summer programs. Of these, 77 were traditional programming grants with 13 located in the identified target areas. In addition, 19 mini-grants were provided to implement programming and events in the target areas serving an additional 6,630 youth. Three hundred homeless children participated in activities at DC General. Nearly 40,000 youth and adults attended 327 community events, the majority of which targeted healthy lifestyles and safety goals. Youth participation by citywide goal (duplicated count): 1. Workforce Development goal: 16,101 youth participated in 111 programs; 2. Academic Achievement goal: 21,283 youth participated in 529 programs; 3. Healthy Lifestyles goal: 9,589 youth participated in 153 programs; 4. Safety goal: 10,220 youth participated in 166 programs; and 5. Strengthening Families goal: 2,217 youth participated in 45 activities. Using a survey and debriefing session, the OCSI steering committee collected feedback from government agency and CBO staff. Staff were asked about planning and programming in order to improve both for OCSI 2013. A few themes emerged: Target area strategy: As evidenced by reductions in three crime categories, OCSI 2012 expanded on the 20% reduction achieved in 2011. Using a targeted area strategy throughout the year has potential to further decrease crime in those communities. Expand coordinated programming: Taking the planned and coordinated approach yearround would better address persistent challenges to youth engagement and success. Similarly, additional community-based organizations, philanthropic institutions, and local corporations should be engaged early in the planning and implementation stages. Expand data collection and evaluation: The OCSI data collection and evaluation process was a significant step in the progression towards a comprehensive citywide data collection, sharing, and evaluation system. This pilot evaluation of OCSI creates an opportunity to Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 2
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings improve and expand the process in order to provide a more in depth analysis of the short and long-term impacts of summer programming including a more systematic process of collecting and documenting data. The feedback will be used to inform the planning for OCSI 2013 which will start in October 2012. This report was prepared by the Trust as the coordinating entity for the One City Summer Initiative. Comments and questions are welcome and can be directed to Nisha Sachdev (Research and Evaluation Manager) at nsachdev@cyitc.org or Ed Davies (One City Summer Coordinator/Interim Executive Director) at Davies.ed@cyitc.org.
INTRODUCTION
Children and youth who engage in positive youth development activities designed to help them develop socially, academically, and feel safe are much more likely than their peers without such supports to be prepared to have healthy and productive adulthoods. Quality out-of-school time programs, including summer programs, can provide enriching experiences, improve socialization in safe environments, and build new skills and thus mitigate negative forces. In the District of Columbia, gangs and crew membership, involvement in criminal activity, substance abuse, and teen parenting1 are common negative forces. Disorganized environments and poverty exacerbate the negative influences. Offering positive programming for young people is a goal for many in the District. Mayor Gray, DC Council, community-based organizations (CBOs), and local and national funders recognize the value. The summer of 2012, however, was the first time that the city took out-of-school time and the positive youth development approach to scale. The One City Summer Initiative provided safe and meaningful activities for DC children, youth and families by more effectively coordinating District government agencies programs, activities, and services in collaboration with CBOs. The six-week summer initiative ran from June 25 to August 3.2 More than 40,000 young people ages 5-24 benefitted from OCSI programs and supports. Youth reported having good and productive experiences across goals and police presence and engagement positively affected neighborhood quality of life. The summer of 2012 was also the first time that evaluation was a planned component. This report summarizes findings from the evaluation and provides an overview of OCSI goals and strategies, a description of the citywide planning process, and the impact of the initiative including how many children and youth participated and the city-wide youth goals that were through the activities. Appendix A has each agencys program summary a well as highlights from their programming. The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction of its size to coordinate the breadth and depth of planning and program implementation across the government, business, and nonprofit sectors. The District has demonstrated what is possible and is poised to make necessary improvements to better serve children, youth, and families.
Informed by Hastings, Tsoi & Harris (2010). Programs operated for six weeks between June 25 and August 3, 2012. Events were implemented between June 18 and August 24, 2012.
2
2012 ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE PLANNING

Overview of the 2012 One City Summer Initiative
The summer initiative was developed to provide safe and meaningful programs and activities for DC children, youth, and families. The primary objectives of the summer efforts were to: 1. Provide meaningful summer experiences for participating youth ages 5 to 24 across the city; 2. Provide a safe summer for all residents in part by reducing violence and crime in targeted neighborhoods; and 3. Increase collaboration among District government agencies and community-based partners. The 2012 initiative capitalized on the successes achieved in the summer 2011. Citywide summer goals for youth, an expanded approach to identifying targeted areas and needs, and a pilot data collection and evaluation process were added in 2012. In addition, targeted decision making was central in 2012. Key targets were: Target Areas: High crime neighborhoods (see Target Area Strategy section); Target Population: Older and/or disconnected youth including developing activities meeting their needs (see Older and/or Disconnected Youth Strategy section); and Target Issue: Youth homelessness including implementing activities for youth staying at DC General Homeless Shelter.
Planning Process
The One City Summer Initiative was led by the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice, Deputy Mayor of Health and Human Services, and the Deputy Mayor for Education, on behalf of Mayor Vincent C. Gray. The Deputy Mayors worked closely with the Trusts One City Summer Coordinator (Coordinator) to convene District government agency directors and their key summer staff for regular planning and implementation meetings (see Appendix B for a list of participating agencies). The Coordinator started convening the multi-agency Summer Steering Committee in September 2011, four months earlier than planning for the summer of 2011. The steering committee met monthly through May 2012 (see Appendix C for OCSI Planning Timeline). In November 2011, the Trust convened a citywide summer strategy meeting of more than 80 community-based organizations and District government agencies. Together, attendees 1) began collaborating for the following summer and 2) vetted the goals and target areas. Four working groups were established to develop major components of the 2012 initiative. Appendix D provides detailed work plans for each group. (See 2012 One City Summer Initiative Components section): 1. Citywide Summer Goals for Youth 2. Target Area Strategy 3. Older and/or Disconnected Youth Strategy 4. Data Collection and Evaluation Strategy
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Between May and September 2012, the Deputy Mayors held bi-weekly meetings with District agency directors and key summer staff to monitor the implementation of the initiative. The meetings were used to track progress toward the initiative goals, to address issues impacting implementation, to coordinate resources needed for upcoming summer activities and events, and to share highlights from activities held in communities across the city.
2012 One City Summer Initiative Components

Component 1: Citywide Summer Goals for Youth The citywide summer goals were based on core youth development principles and were intended to measure (1) common outcomes for all youth participating in the summer initiative and (2) whether young people were participating in District government agency or community-based programs and activities. OCSI was grounded in five Citywide Summer Goals, all of which are fully described in Appendix E: 1. Goal 1: Workforce Development: Youth will gain meaningful work and career exposure, experience and skills. 2. Goal 2: Academic Achievement: Youth will increase their academic knowledge and skills and increase their chance of academic advancement. 3. Goal 3: Healthy Lifestyles: Youth will increasingly adopt healthy lifestyles. 4. Goal 4: Safety: Youth will have a safe summer experience. 5. Goal 5: Strengthening Families: Opportunities will be provided to strengthen youth and family bonds. All participating District government agencies and Trust-funded community partners were required to offer programming that met one or more of the citywide goals. (See Appendix F for District government agency specific goals and programming and Appendix G for specific Trust-funded CBOs and goals). The most common goal addressed was Goal 2, Academic Achievement. Component 2: Target Area Strategy One major goal of this initiative was to create a safe summer. Historically, the Metropolitan Police Department developed a summer strategy to reduce crime in identified high-crime communities. The Summer Steering Committee and MPD mapped crime data and selected social and behavioral indicators such as teenage pregnancy and academic outcomes. Youth indicators were mapped across Police Service Areas (PSA) and were compared to a map noting locations of Trust-funded programs, DC Public Schools, libraries, and recreation centers among other youth-serving locations. What became clear was those areas with little programming had a greater incidence of teen pregnancies and other negative health, social, and education indicators. The result was the identification of areas of particular need (see Appendix H). Nine PSAs (103, 308, 501, 507, 604, 608, 705, 706, and 707) were identified based on the analysis of crime, socio-economic, and behavioral data. Five Summer Crime Initiative (SCI) areas were created; they encompassed most of the identified PSAs. The selected target areas were: SCI 1: North Capitol/O Street NW (Ward 5 PSAs 103, 308, and 501) SCI 2: Langston-Carver/Rosedale (Ward 5 PSAs 507) Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 6
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings SCI 3: Benning Ridge/Marshall Heights (Ward 7 PSAs 604 and 608) SCI 4: Congress Heights (Ward 8 PSA 705 and 707) SCI 5: Washington Highlands (Ward 8 PSA 706)
In keeping with a positive youth development approach, the crime reduction strategy was not limited to increasing police presence in the target areas. Government agencies and CBOs provided programs and activities that offered young people positive alternatives to criminal and risky behavior. Each participating DC government agency was required to select at least one target area and develop community activities. Appendix F provides details of the planned activities. The crime suppression and diversion work was also supported by community-based organizations. Nonprofits seeking funding from the Trust received points for offering programming in one of the five Summer Crime Initiative areas. Overall, the Trust funded programs to serve 3,100 young people. Of these, 475 participated in 13 programs located in one of the five target areas. In addition, 19 mini-grants were provided for programming and event in the target areas which served 6,630 youth. OCSI was also interested in the MPD goal of improving the overall quality of life in the target areas. MPD coordinated walkthroughs of target area neighborhoods for District government agencies. The walkthroughs were designed to identify the physical and social needs of each target area, help deter crime, improve the communitys appearance, and identify critical family needs. The Office of Neighborhood Engagement (ONE) connected agencies with families and neighborhood problems. Appendix I contains the full walkthrough report for each target area. Component 3: Older and/or Disconnected Youth Strategy We Own the Night (WON) was created for OCSI 2012 to provide age-appropriate and appealing programming for older, perhaps disconnected, youth ages 14 to 24. Part of the appeal would be to provide programming during the hours of 9 pm to midnight. Selected Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), DC Public Library (DCPL), and DC Public Schools (DCPS) sites in target neighborhoods would host WON programming. District government agencies and CBOs were asked to provide themed-based activities in media/technology, performing arts, and sports/fitness, culminating in a final showcase of the participating youths projects. The activities were to be used as a hook to engage older and disconnected youth. While the youth were engaged in their activities, additional agency and CBO resources were to be available at each site to connect youth with the services and information youth needed to get connected to employment services, education options, mental and physical health services, and the like. The sites selected to be WON sites were: Bald Eagle/Congress Heights Recreation Centers, Wards 7 and 8 PSAs 705 and 708 (DPR) Browne Education Campus, Ward 5 PSA 507 (DCPS) Columbia Heights Recreation Center, Ward 1 PSA 304 (DPR) Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 7
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Deanwood Recreation Center/Deanwood Public Library, Ward 7 PSA 602 (DPR/DCPL) Dorothy Height/Benning Public Library, Ward 7 PSA 603 (DCPL) Greenleaf Recreation Center, Ward 6 PSA 105 (DPR) Kennedy Recreation Center, Ward 6 PSA 308 (DPR) Lockridge/Bellevue Public Library, Ward 8 PSA 708 (DCPL) Trinidad Recreation Center, Ward 5 PSA 506 (DPR)
The Department of Parks and Recreation hosted 18 We Own the Night events during OCSI 2012. The other agencies identified as WON sites will host their events during the fall of 2012. The delay is a result of funding and logistical challenges. Component 4: Data Collection and Evaluation Strategy The addition of an evaluation component was a significant improvement in 2012. Led by the Trust, the data and evaluation working group developed a process to collect common data from each participating government agency and Trust-funded community provider (see Appendix D). OCSI 2012 focused on collecting process and outcome information. Data was collected in several ways including: a data collection template, youth participant post survey (youth survey), and an agency feedback survey. This data allowed the Trust to report on OCSI participant demographic information, participation rates, summer goals impacted, geographic distribution of programs, and youth perceptions of their experience in the summer programming. Appendix J contains the data collection tools. The data was also used to create a descriptive analysis to measure the overall effectiveness of the OCSI. The findings are discussed in the following sections. Overall, the evaluation strategy was geared to: Collect agency-collected information at the program/provider level. Scrub disaggregated data, removing duplicate records. Allow for data comparisons across sectors. Allow for the analysis to determine whether changes are necessary.
ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE: CITYWIDE GOALS FOR YOUTH

Programming for OCSI was driven by the five citywide goals of workforce development, academic achievement, healthy lifestyles, safety, and strengthening families. Programs could work on more than one goal and a number of programs did, explaining why the number of youth participants shown in Table 1 totals more than the 40,227 young people involved in One City Summer Initiative programming. The data in Table 1 also shows the number and percentage of youth engaged in and programs offered by goal. Goal 2, Academic Achievement, had the most youth participants, 21,283. Goal 5, Strengthening Families, had the fewest participants since it was largely reliant on agency- and CBOsponsored public events. The DC Free Summer Meals Program, funded by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) and implemented by the Department of Parks and Recreation and CBOs, served 26,000 daily meals throughout the six-week initiative period. The children and youth served are not represented in the table since the data was aggregated. Disaggregated data would have allowed for the identification of duplicate (summer meals and program for the same child) records. No matter, the summer meals program was a central element of the Healthy Lifestyles goal, Goal 3. It bears mention here that the District has been ranked the best summer food program in the country for six consecutive years for reaching the highest percentage of low-income children!3
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Programs and Youth by Goal

Goal Goal 1: Workforce Development Goal 2: Academic Achievement Goal 3: Healthy Lifestyles Goal 4: Safety Goal 5: Strengthening Families Number and (Percentage) of Youth Participants 16,101 (27%) 21,283 (36%) 9,589 (16%) 10,220 (17%) 2,217 (4%) Number and (Percentage) of Programs 111 (11%) 529 (53%) 152 (15%) 166 (17%) 45 (4%)
By its very nature, SYEP drove participation by 14-18 year olds in Goal 1, Workforce Development. In the same way, middle school-age young people represent the largest age group in Goal 2, Academic Achievement, followed by elementary school-age children. These youngest children, ages 5-9, were the largest group served by programs meeting Goal 3, Healthy Lifestyles. Figure 1 illustrates the age breakdown per goal.
D.C. Hunger Solutions, What's happening with summer food in D.C., http://www.dchunger.org/fedfoodprogs/summer/summer_index.htm accessed October 9, 2012.
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Figure 1: One City Summer Initiative 2012 Goals by Youth Age
This figure does not include youth participating in the DC Free Summer Meal Program as data was not disaggregated.
10
ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE: PROGRAMS AND EVENTS

There was a wide variety of summer programs and community events sponsored by District government agencies and CBOs that aligned with the OCSI goals and operated in the five target areas. Programs were defined as structured activities that took place for at least five consecutive days during the summer. Events were one-time short-term activities held in neighborhoods across the city that provided fun activities for youth, resources and information for residents, and to serve as community-building opportunities.
District Government Agency One City Summer Initiative Programs

Government agencies were required to develop programs that aligned with the five citywide summer goals. Twenty-eight government agencies participated in OCSI 2012 through participation in the planning meetings, program and event provision citywide and in the target areas, employing SYEP youth, and providing resources at community events. Appendix A provides details about agency participation and programming. The major youth-serving agencies in the District governmentDPR, DCPS, DOES, DCPL, and MPDprovided a variety programs and activities including summer camps, enrichment activities, summer school, summer jobs/career exploration, and sports camps. Table 2 presents basic information about their summer programming.
Table 2: OCSI 2012 Summer Programs Operated by DC Government AgenciesGoals, Youth, Sites, and Programs
Agency Main Goal Main Program Summer reading programs Summer school Total Number of Youth 11,787 Total Number of Sites 25 Total Number of Programs 419
DC Public Library
Goal 2: Academics Goal 2: Academics Goal 1: Workforce Development Goal 3: Healthy Lifestyles Goal 4: Safety -
DC Public Schools
5,397
18
Department of Employment Services Department of Parks and Recreation Metropolitan Police Department TOTAL
SYEP
12,449
505
Summer camps
5,592
82
33
Camp Brown -
674 35,919
6 636
6 464
11
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Other District government agencies hosted young people in the Summer Youth Employment Program. Forty-six percent of SYEP participants, 5,713 youth, were in government agencies. Government agencies also provided space for community-based organizations for site operation. DC Public Library OCSI Programs DCPL provided summer enrichment activities to 11,787 youth in 419 programs at 25 sites; all were focused on Goal 2, Academic Achievement. Of the participants, 97% were under the age of 13. The remaining youth were older and participated in the teen program. Young people took in performances, engaged in interactive events, explored career options, and visited with mentors. DC Public Library also hosted 81 SYEP participants at various branches. DC Public Schools OCSI Programs As part of OCSI, the DCPS summer school program had 18 sites open exposing 5,397 youth to Goal 2, Academic Achievement. Of these students, 1,481 youth were enrolled in elementary school; 194 youth were enrolled in middle school; 391 youth enrolled in a summer bridge program for rising ninth graders; 2,367 youth were enrolled in high school; and 964 youth participated in the Extended School Year program for special education students. Of the 2,367 young people enrolled in high school summer school, 1,960 students successfully completed the session and 465 graduated high school at the end of the summer. The DCPS Office of Out of School Time served an additional 2,260 youth through partnerships with CBOs. Finally, DCPS hosted 789 SYEP youth, about 6% of the total SYEP participants. Department of Employment Services OCSI Programs Acceptance in the Summer Youth Employment Program is a multi-step process. More than 20,000 young people signed up and of the 14,354 young people who completed mandatory steps and were accepted, 12,449, or 87%, ended up participating. These young adults worked at 505 sites across the city. By site type, the breakdown of organization types hosting youth is here: District government agencies: 5,713 (46%) Community-based organizations: 3,944 (32%) Private organizations: 1,399 (11%) Charter schools: 774 (6%) Federal government agencies: 619 (5%) Department of Parks and Recreation OCSI Programs DPR supported the One City Summer Initiative in four ways. First, the agency served 5,592 youth in 33 programs at 82 different sites, primarily exposing them to healthy lifestyles (Goal 3). A majority3,175of the youth served were between the ages of 5 and 13 and these youngsters Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 12
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings participated in summer camps such as Little Explorers, Discovery, and Tween. All the camps offered life skills and recreation activities. The second way DPR supported OCSI was by hosting 543 SYEP youth. Further, DPR's partnerships with CBOs served 315 DPR youth (way 3). The fourth way was by managing and supporting 52,064 youth visits to pools. Metropolitan Police Department OCSI Programs In addition to managing the crime prevention and suppression efforts citywide and in particular in the five target areas, the police department engaged 674 young people in six programs at six sites; all targeting Goal 4, Safety. The majority of these youth472attended Camp Brown. Camp Brown is a weeklong sleep away camp in southern Maryland that provides opportunities for exploring nature and engaging in enrichment activities. The remaining 202 young people participated in Boy's Group, Cupcakes (Girl's Group), HATI (employment support group), S.T.A.R.S. (work and life skills), and a Ward 7 basketball camp. The Metropolitan Police Department also hosted 152 OCSI events, exposing connection 19,700 youth and families to community-based resources. Finally, MPD hosted 203 young people through the Summer Youth Employment Program. Office of the State Superintendent of Education OCSI Programs OSSE funded the DC Free Summer Meals program. The program reached 26,000 children and youth on a daily basis at 343 sites in community-based organizations and DC government agencies. These sites provided up to two meals per day (breakfast, supper, and/or snacks).
Community-Based Organizations One City Summer Programs

During the summer of 2012, the Trust funded 77 nonprofit community-based organizations to work with more than 3,100 youth. Appendix G maps and lists the grantees. Funding priority was given to those organizations whose programming would be located in one or more of the target areas (SCIs). Community-based organizations offered a variety of programs types including arts, sports, academic enrichment, and technology. While many CBOs ran programs at their own sites, others operated in DC government agency sites. The Trust facilitated the partnerships. Agency hosts included DC Housing Authority, DC Public Schools, and Department of Parks and Recreation. As previously mentioned, all Trust-funded organizations were required to work toward at least one of the five OCSI citywide goals. As shown in Table 3, Goals 2, 3, and 4 had the most participants and programs.
Table 3: Trust-funded Youth and Programs by Goal, Number and Percentage

Goal Goal 1: Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Goal 5: Workforce Development Academic Achievement Healthy Lifestyles Safety Strengthening Families Number and (Percentage) of Youth Participants 1,542 (13%) 3,193 (26%) 2,783 (23%) 3,360 (28%) 1,339 (11%) Number and (Percentage) of Programs 34 (15%) 60 (26%) 50 (22%) 60 (26%) 24 (11%)
13
One City Summer Initiative Events

The 327 government- and CBO-sponsored events engaged 39,876 youth and adults. Events included job fairs, street festivals, workshops, and the DC Youth Advisory Council-hosted Mayors Youth Town Hall Meeting on Public Safety. More than one-third of the events were new in 2012 and included movie nights, ice cream socials, and mobile outreach. See Appendix K for list of all community events deliberately aligned with OCSI goals. The Metropolitan Police Department sponsored more events than any other single agency (see Table 4). Many of these 152 events, 46% of all OCSI events, brought mobile resources in. MPD and the Department of Parks and Recreation used mobile activities such as Beat the Streets, movie nights, fun wagons, and skate mobiles to provide fun, interactive events for youth in neighborhoods with few facilities or open spaces for youth to engage in safe play. Also worthy of note: Although community events targeted all ages, the focus was on older youth. Of the 327 events, 150 were for older teens/young adults, 71 were directed at younger youth, and 106 targeted whole families. Seventy-three percent of the events took place in Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8; the locations mirrored the Summer Crime Initiative locations with the exception of those in Ward 6. Remember, two SCI areas were in Wards 5 and 8 and one in Ward 7. About a third (31%) of the events targeted the Safety and Healthy Lifestyles (29%) goals as is illustrated in Figure 2. The University of the District of Columbia provided volunteers to five events sponsored by other agencies. OCSI featured a kick-off event at Banneker Recreation Center to highlight the agency summer programs available to DC residents. A summer closeout festival was held at Langdon Park. Both the kick-off and closeout events featured performances by local youth artists and agency resource tables.
Figure 2: Number of OCSI Events by Goal
14
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Table 4: Number of Events for Youth and Families by DC Government Agency
Agency Child and Family Services Agency DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation DC Housing Authority DC Office on Aging DC Public Library DC Public Schools Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Department of Health Department of Health Care Finance Department of Human Services Department of Mental Health Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Metropolitan Police Department Office of the Attorney General Office of Unified Communications TOTAL Number of Events 6 2 1 1 29 3 7 45 1 1 36 9 18 14 152 1 1 327
15
ONE CITY SUMMER CRIME INITIATIVE AND TARGET AREAS

All the SCI target areas had comparatively high crime rates for specific crimes such as robberies, burglaries, assaults with a deadly weapon, drug abuse and trafficking, and domestic violence. The exception was the target area DC General Homeless Shelter. The areas also shared similar low quality of life characteristics including graffiti, overgrown trees and grass, vacant lots, trash and debris, playgrounds in need of repair, abandoned vehicles, and blighted vacant properties. Finally, significant numbers of youth residing in these neighborhoods do not perform well school, have high rates of truancy, and are more likely to engage in at-risk behaviors. OCSI developed strategies to address these youth, quality of life, and crime issues.
Summer Programming in Target Areas

Programs and events were deliberately operated in the target areas to provide meaningful engagement for youth and their families, and to support the MPD summer crime initiative (SCI) efforts.
Table 5: Five Summer Crime Initiative Target Areas

SCI 1: North Capitol/O Street NW (Ward 5 PSAs 103, 308, and 501) SCI 2: Langston-Carver/Rosedale (Ward 5 PSAs 507) SCI 3: Benning Ridge/Marshall Heights (Ward 7 PSAs 604 and 608) SCI 4: Congress Heights (Ward 8 PSA 705 and 707) SCI 5: Washington Highlands (Ward 8 PSA 706)
As illustrated in Table 6, SCI 3 (Benning Ridge/Marshall Heights) had the largest number of youth participants compared to the other target areas. Furthermore, due to the Summer Youth Employment Program, the Workforce goal had a high participation rate. SCI 5 (Washington Highlands) had consistently lower participation rates in all goals compared to the other SCIs. It should be noted that further analysis of how many eligible youth (ages 5 to 24 years) living in each SCI indicated that Benning Ridge/Marshall Heights has a higher percentage of youth compared to Washington Highland, which has the lowest percentage of youth of the five target areas. Figure 4 shows youth participation in goal-specific programs by target areas.
16
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Table 6: Total Number of Children and Youth Served in Programs located in Summer Crime Initiative Areas by SCI
Summer Crime Initiative SCI 1 SCI 2 SCI 3 SCI 4 SCI 5 Total Number Young People Served 1,602 1,778 2,155 1,812 752
Figure 3: Youth Participation by Age by Target Area
This figure does not include youth participating in the DC Free Summer Meals program.
MPD Summer Crime Initiative in Target Areas

MPDs goal was to reduce violent crimesprimarily homicides and robberiescommitted by those under age 18 in the target areas, not by increasing the number of arrests, but by implementing strategies that reduced the number of crimes being committed. These strategies included: Increasing MPDs presence; Increasing programs and activities that gave residents constructive and engaging alternatives to illegal and violent behavior; and Improving quality of life through property repairs and physical upgrades. OCSI programs, events, and walkthroughs coordinated with MPDs policing efforts had a positive effect on crime in the SCI target areas. There were fewer homicides (-71%), robberies (-15%), and armed Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 17
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings burglaries (-25%) across the five target areas. During the summer of 2012, four of the five target areas covered the same (or parts of the same) areas as last summers initiative. There was a 20% reduction in violent crime during the summer of 2011 in the target areas. (See Appendix L for a summary of the crime reductions in each target area.) The strategies for the SCI areas also had an impact on juvenile crime as well as shown in Table 7. While juvenile arrests were up in the five SCI areas compared to the same time period in 2011, the increase may be attributed to an enhanced focus on the areas, leading to an increased chance of arrest for non-violent offenses such as drug possession and other misdemeanors. Juvenile arrests for more serious violent crimes, on the other hand, will often decrease as a result of the patrol strategies and tactics employed in the SCI areas. This years initiative also ran a month longer and had more officers deployed in smaller areas of focus compared to last summers initiative. This also may have contributed to the increased number of arrests. (See Appendix L for a breakdown of juvenile arrests for highlighted offenses by SCI target area).
Table 7: Number of Juvenile Arrests in All SCI Areas (Calendar Years 2011 and 2012)
Arrest Category Aggravated Assault Burglary Robbery/Carjacking Theft from Auto Narcotic Drug Laws Release Violations Other Misdemeanors TOTAL Number Juvenile Arrests 2011 7 7 18 5 8 22 9 76 Number Juvenile Arrests 2012 6 5 15 0 13 27 13 79
Agency Walkthroughs in Target Areas

MPD and the Office of Neighborhood Engagement coordinated Summer Crime Initiative neighborhood walkthroughs for government agency staff. The purpose of the visits was to identify issues that affect quality of life and crime in the target areas and the resources needed to address the issues. Of the 55 issues identified across all the target areas, 49 were resolved. Walkthrough data is shown in Tables 8 and 9. Appendix I contains detailed reports on each target area walkthrough.
Table 8: Number of Issues identified by Target Area

SCI Target Area 1 Number of Issues Number of Resolved Issues 7 6 SCI Target Area 2 12 11 SCI Target Area 3 13 11 SCI Target Area 4 11 10 SCI Target Area 5 12 11 TOTAL 55 49
18
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Table 9: Number of Issues by Government Agency
DCRA Number of Issues 17 DDOT 15 14 DPW 14 11 DCHA 7 7 PEPCO* 2 2 TOTAL 55 49
Number of Resolved 15 Issues * PEPCO is not a District government agency
ONE tracked each issue and provided status updates at OCSI planning meetings. Agencies were expected to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. More than 70% of the issues were resolved within one week of being identified. The remaining issuesmost of which were assigned to DCRA for resolutiontook longer resulting from the regulatory processes in place to protect the rights of property owners and/or the District. For example, a property owner who receives an overgrowth citation has 30 days to abate the property. After 30 days, DCRA schedules a re-inspection of the property. The owner can apply for an abatement extension which could further delay the resolution of the issue. On average, these types of issues can take up to 90 days to resolve.
19
ONE CITY SUMMER INITIATIVE: FINDINGS

Overview of Methods
The evaluation time period was June 18-August 24, 2012 with a majority of the programs operating for six weeks, from June 25-August 3, 2012. The OCSI evaluation consisted of several components: Crime data, youth survey, event participation counts, program use, program staff survey, and a debriefing session for DC government staff. Youth data was contributed by the youth participants themselves via a post-participation survey. The survey measured characteristics of the participants, program participation, ward of youth residence, and satisfaction with the program. The youth survey was administered the week of July 30, the last week of programming for the majority of the young people. District government agencies and CBOs used a standardized data collection template to collect information about the children and youth they were serving; they reported PSA of program, ward of program, and attendance. Appendix J contains the survey tools. The data was the cleaned and reviewed for consistency. All quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version 9.3. Review of data, including double entry and data checks, was implemented to ensure data accuracy.
One City Summer Initiative Youth Participants

Youth served by summer programs funded and operated by the government and community-based organizations and even those not funded by the Trust are included in this evaluation. All youth participants were identified by the agencies and CBOs, and all contact with the youth including providing information and disseminating the surveys was made through agency and CBO staff.
Characteristics of One City Summer Initiative Youth Program Participants

Some 40,227 children and youth were served through 614 programs, 26,000 daily meals were served as part of the DC Free Summer Meal Program, and 39,876 young people and adults attended 327 events. A breakdown of the data finds, for example, Male and female participation was comparable, 53% and 47%, respectively; Fifty-eight percent of the youth were in high school or graduated high school (but not enrolled in college); Sixty-eight percent of participants were between the ages of 10 and 18; Sixty percent of the participants came from Wards 5, 7, and 8 combined; and Nearly half, 46%, of the participants had previously participated in a summer program. Additional information about OCSI participants is found in Table 10. The data in the table reports the demographic characteristics of 23,535 youth participants, less than the other figures reported so far in the report40,227 young people in 614 programs, 26,000 daily meals served as part of the DC Free Summer Meals Program, etc.
20
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Of the participants, 23,235 youth participants were included because only a portion of the youth data given to the Trust for the evaluation was disaggregated. Only disaggregated data can be broken down as in Table 10. DCPS summer school, MPD's Camp Brown, and DC Public Library provided the aggregated data.
Characteristics of Youth Survey Respondents

Fifteen percent of the 40,227 youth involved with one or more summer program completed the OCSI survey. For a population size of over 10,000, an adequate sample size is 350.4 Analysis of this subgroup of respondents showed similar representation of the total youth population with respect to age, ward of residence, and race of the youth. Therefore, the findings from the survey can also be representative of the entire OCSI youth participant population. Basic data about OCSI survey respondents in One City Summer Initiative programs and events includes: More males and females participated in the survey, 58% and 42%, respectively. A majority of the youth were in high school or graduated high school (but not enrolled in college) (58%). Just over half, 53%, of respondents were between the ages of 14 and 18. Sixty-six percent of the participants came from Wards 5, 7, and 8 combined. Fifty-seven percent reported participating in the program two or more years. This is 24% higher than for all OCSI participants. Additional information is found in Table 10.
Fitz-Gibbon and Morris (1987), How to design a program evaluation.
21
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Table 10: Demographic Characteristics of Youth Program Participants and Survey Respondents (unduplicated)
OCSI Participants Youth Characteristic Gender/Sex Female Male No response Age Under 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 No response Ward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Not sure No response
Table continued on next page.
Survey Respondents Total 2,028 1,453 47 -33 69 97 123 170 217 222 205 114 317 428 386 388 331 181 133 82 6 1 6 14 206 69 45 376 459 301 704 744 484 134 Percentage 42% 58% --1% 2% 3% 4% 6% 6% 6% 3% 9% 12% 11% 11% 9% 5% 4% 2% <1% <1% <1% <1% -7% 2% 2% 13% 16% 10% 24% 26% ---
Total 12,422 11,113 -682 678 715 914 831 805 652 634 556 431 2,420 2,823 3,526 2,576 2,223 1,404 989 651 18 3 4 -1,842 987 472 3,361 3,918 2,648 5,930 4,214 -163
Percentage 53% 47% -3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 10% 12% 15% 11% 9% 6% 4% 3% <1% <1% <1% -8% 4% 2% 14% 17% 11% 25% 18% ---
22
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Table 10: Demographic Characteristics of Youth Program Participants and Survey Respondents (unduplicated), continued
Youth Characteristic Ethnicity/Race American Indian/Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Other No response Education Level Elementary School or Below Middle School High School High School/No College College Some College Prior Program Participant Yes No Type of Program Camp Internship Library Summer school SYEP Volunteer/community service Other No response Years Prior Participant First year 2 3 4 or more No response OCSI Participants Total Percentage 80 286 18,977 887 397 1,755 1,153 4,658 4,847 13,310 56 28 11 10,924 12,611 -------------<1% 1% 85% 4% 2% 8% -20% 21% 58% <1% <1% <1% 46% 54% -------------Survey Respondents Total Percentage 34 15 3,075 200 20 99 80 --------1,099 202 12 172 1,790 38 185 30 1,494 793 523 681 21 1% 1% 89% 6% 1% 3% ---------31% 6% <1% 5% 51% 1% 5% -43% 23% 15% 20% --
This table does not include participation for DCPL programs, DCPS summer school enrollment, and MPD Camp Brown as individual youth data was not available.
Youth Survey Results

Learning Opportunities and Satisfaction The responses to the youth survey statement In the summer program I got a chance to was used to assess the number and percentage of youth who responded to having had the opportunity. The response rate for each listed learning opportunity was approximately 98%. Those who responded Yes, always; Yes, most of the time; or Yes, some of the time were considered to have had
23
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings engaged in the learning opportunity. Table 11 shows the results for learning opportunities and satisfaction. The vast majority of the youth survey respondents (93%) stated they had the chance to do new things. Interestingly, 69% of youth reported they talked with adults about current life events and 45% talked with adults about personal things. Overall, youth expressed satisfaction with a program; only 4% said they never felt like attending the program and 6% reported they would not recommend the program to a friend.
Table 11: Learning Opportunities and Satisfaction Reported by Youth (unduplicated)

Learning Opportunities Learning Opportunities Do new things Go new places Make friends Talk with adults about current life events Talk with adults about school or schoolwork Talk with adults about personal things Satisfaction: Like Coming to Program Always Sometimes Never No response Satisfaction: Recommend Program to a Friend Yes 2,389 71% 23% 6% -Maybe 760 No 209 No response 170 These numbers represent the number and percent who responded to each question. 2,020 1,206 131 171 60% 36% 4% -3,197 2,792 3,272 2,391 2,520 1,552 93% 81% 85% 69% 73% 45% Total Percentage
Youth Outcomes Goal 1: Workforce Development Outcomes To measure workforce development outcomes, the survey used statements and asked the youth to select the appropriate response. The answers were scaledA lot, A little, and Not at all. (See Table 12). Those who responded A lot were considered to have gained workforce development skills. The statements were: The summer program has helped me to make suggestions without being bossy; The summer program has helped me to learn to be responsible; The summer program has helped me to work well with others in completing the activity; In the summer program, I have learned how to manage time well; and Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 24
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings In the summer program, I have learned how to set goals for my future.
For each of the statements, about 45% of the youth they achieved the outcome, with more youth responding being responsible (66%) than managing time well (43%). For all statements relating to the workforce development, in each age group over 50% of youth responded A lot (with exception to making suggestions appropriately where only 45% of 14 to 18 year olds responded A lot. In addition, a high number of youth across all age groups responded that the program helped them to work well with others and be responsible (over 55% in each age group). Figure 5 illustrates the responses to the workforce development statements by age.
Figure 4: Workforce Development Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses
Goal 2: Academic Outcomes Four scaled statements were used to measure academic outcomes (see Table 12): The summer program has helped me to finish my homework; The summer program has helped me to get good grades in school; The summer program has helped me to go to school prepared; and The summer program has helped me to be motivated to try hard in school. Those who responded A lot were considered to have gained academic skills. For the statement regarding finishing homework and getting good grades, a low percentage stated that they program has helped them (26% and 32% respectively). These responses were not a surprise; not all programs with this goal actually gave the children and youth homework or graded them. Fiscal Year 2012, Summer 2012 25
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings A higher percentage of 5 to 13 year olds responded A lot to the statements posed. This could be because more of the younger youth programs targeted academic outcomes. Conversely, a lower percentage of 19 to 24 year olds responded A lot to the academic outcomes questions, which could reflect their focus on workforce development programming. Figure 6 contains the responses to the questions by age for the academic outcomes.
Figure 5: Academic Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses
Goal 3: Healthy Lifestyles Outcomes To measure healthy lifestyles outcomes (Goal 3), seven scaled statements were used: The summer program has helped to feel satisfied with myself; The summer program has helped me to feel positive about the future; The summer program has helped me to be a good member of my community; In the summer program, I have learned how to deal with stress; In the summer program, I have learned how to make good decisions about nutrition and health; and In the summer program, I have learned how to say no to alcohol, drugs, and other things that are not good for me. Those who responded A lot were considered to have been impacted by healthy lifestyles outcomes. Table 12 shows the responses to each question for this goal. A high number of youth (82%) reported feeling satisfied about them. In addition, about two-thirds of the youth (66%) reported feeling positive about their future. A lower percentage of youth reported learning how to
26
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings make good decisions about health and nutrition as well as saying no to alcohol or drugs (44% and 41% respectively). For questions regarding the healthy lifestyles goal, a higher percentage of 5 to 13 year olds than other age groups responded A lot to the statements. This could be due to the fact that more of the younger youth programs targeted these outcomes. Figure 7 has the responses to the questions by age for the healthy lifestyles outcomes.
Figure 6: Healthy Lifestyles Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses
Goal 4: Safety Outcomes Three statements were used to measure youth safety outcomes. The statements included: The summer program helped me to learn to respect other people; The summer program has helped me to disagree without starting a fight; and Did you feel safe at the summer program? Those who responded A lot were considered to have reached the safety-related outcomes. More than 50% of the youth felt that they gained the conflict resolution skills such as respecting others and disagreeing appropriately. In addition, 80% stated they always felt safe at the summer program with an additional 18% stating they sometimes feel safe. Table 12 shows the responses to each question for this goal. It is worth noting that youth in the middle age ranges, 10 to 13 years and 14 to 18 years, had lower percentages for Respect Others and Disagree without Fighting than the younger youth (5-9) and older youth (19-24). Given the amount of growth and development youth
27
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings undergo in the middle years, more opportunities to support their healthy development are needed during the summer as well as the rest of the year. A high percentage of younger youth (ages 5 to 13) responded A lot. In addition, a higher percentage (88%) of older youth (ages 19 to 24) always felt safe at the program compared to 71% of the younger youth (ages 5 to 9 years). Figure 8 has the responses to the questions by age for the safety outcome.
Figure 7: Safety Outcomes by Age, A lot and Always Responses
Goal 5: Strengthening Families Outcomes To measure the strengthening families outcomes, two scaled statements were used: In the summer program I have learned how to solved programs in my life" and In the summer program I have learned how to find help when to reach a goal.
Those who responded A lot were considered to have reached these outcomes. For both of these statements, more than 50% of youth responded A lot. Parents were not surveyed as part of OCSI, explaining why Figure 9 reports responses from children and youth to age 24.
28
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Figure 8: Strengthening Families Outcomes by Age, A Lot Responses
29
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Table 12: Responses to Survey Questions by Youth (unduplicated)
Goals and Outcomes Goal 1: Workforce Development The summer program has helped me to make suggestions without being bossy. A lot A little Not at all No response The summer program has helped me to learn to be responsible. A lot A little Not at all No response The summer program has helped me to work well with others in completing the activity. A lot A little Not at all No response In the summer program, I have learned how to manage time well. A lot A little Not at all No response In the summer program, I have learned how to set goals for my future. A lot A little Not at all No response Goal 2: Academic Achievement The summer program has helped me to get good grades in school. A lot A little Not at all No response
Total
Percentage
3,356 1,638 1,144 574 172 3,342 2,207 851 284 186 3,340 2,074 926 340 188 3,316 1,422 1,031 863 212 3,318 1,836 998 1,484 210
95% 46% 34% 17% -95% 66% 25% 8% -95% 62% 28% 10% -94% 43% 31% 26% -94% 55% 45% 6% --
3,441 881 758 1,802 87
98% 26% 22% 52% --
30
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Table 12: Responses to Survey Questions by Youth (unduplicated), Continued
The summer program has helped me to go to school prepared. A lot A little Not at all No response The summer program has helped me to be more motivated to try hard in school. A lot A little Not at all No response The summer program has helped me to finish my homework. A lot A little Not at all No response Goal 3: Healthy Lifestyles The summer program has helped me to feel satisfied with myself. A lot A little Not at all No response The summer program has helped me to feel positive about the future. A lot A little Not at all No response In the summer program, I have learned how to deal with stress. A lot A little Not at all No response
3,421 1,121 875 1,425 107 3,430 1,377 1,026 1,027 98 3,445 1,753 990 702 83
97% 32% 26% 42% -97% 40% 30% 30% -98% 51% 29% 20% --
3,449 2,004 1,017 48 29 3,448 2,284 836 328 80 3,318 1,208 1,224 885 210
98% 82% 42% 2% -98% 66% 24% 10% -94% 36% 37% 27% --
31
Table 12: Responses to Survey Questions by Youth (unduplicated), Continued

In the summer program, I have learned how to make good decisions about nutrition and health. A lot A little Not at all No response In the summer program, I have learned how to say no to alcohol, drugs, and other things that are not good for me. A lot A little Not at all No response Goal 4: Safety The summer program has helped me to learn to respect other people. A lot A little Not at all No response The summer program has helped me to disagree without starting a fight. A lot A little Not at all No response Did you feel safe in the summer program/activity? A lot A little Not at all No response Goal 5: Strengthening Families In the summer program I have learned to solve problems in my life. A lot A little Not at all No response In the summer program I have learned to find help when to reach a goal. A lot A little Not at all No response 3,322 1,691 1,098 533 206 3,304 1,695 958 651 224 94% 51% 33% 16% -94% 51% 29% 20% -3,383 2,063 996 324 145 3,361 1,683 1,133 545 167 3,473 2,764 630 79 55 96% 61% 29% 10% -95% 50% 34% 16% -98% 80% 18% 20% -3,315 1,374 1,044 897 213 94% 41% 31% 27% --
3,295 1,453 803 1,039 233
93% 44% 24% 32% --
32
RECOMMENDATIONS
By all accounts, the 2012 One City Summer Initiative was a success. More than 40,000 children and youth ages 5 to 24 participated in an astounding 614 programs. For the sixth consecutive year, the District has been ranked first in the nation for serving 26,000 daily meals through the DC Free Summer Meals Program.5 Many of the city's youth had positive outcomes resulting from their engagement in summer programming. Even with these achievements, there is always room for improvement. What follows are recommendations for the summer of 2013. Ideas come from DC government agency staff via the survey and/or debriefing session, the data, and from the Trust housing the OCSI Coordinator.
Planning and Implementation

Government agency resources staff and financial should be identified earlier in the planning process to ensure that adequate resources are available to meet OCSI goals. A web-based information portal should be used to share information, calendars, templates, etc. with all participating agencies and partners. (See also Data Collection/Evaluation and Funding sections) Expanding the initiative to be year-round would capitalize on the partnerships and gains made during the summer and would bring stability to a number of nonprofit, communitybased organizations. A year-round effort would also better address the youth and crime issues that persist throughout the year. Engaging the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development and cluster agencies would add new opportunities for partnership and information-sharing in programming and at events. Engage the Office of the Chief Technology Officer and agency technology staff in planning and implementation. These experts would help address tech and related challenges. (See also Data Collection/Evaluation) Investigate using the DC ONE card to track youth participation in District agency and CBO programs to reduce double-counting and accurately track participation and use of services.
Program Offerings
Deliberately plan for the goal of Strengthening Families (Goal 5). Such planning would include adding process outputs, identifying ways to engage organizations already working on all facets of family strengthening, and linking organizations working on this goal with other organizations. Add programs to address the specific needs of 10-14 year olds and 14-18 year olds, particularly in Goal 3, Healthy Lifestyles. Measure program quality. (See also Data Collection/Evaluation) Conduct focus groups of youth to inform program offerings for OCSI 2013.
D.C. Hunger Solutions, What's happening with summer food in D.C., http://www.dchunger.org/fedfoodprogs/summer/summer_index.htm accessed October 9, 2012.
33
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings Expand partners for feeding youth, such as the Capital Area Food Bank, to feed young people in the evenings and on weekends. Engage more children and youth in Wards 7 and 8 in summer programming. In OCSI 2012 for the population evaluated, only about a third of the youth participated. (There are more than 37,000 young people 5-24 living in Wards 7 and 8 and 10,144 young people participated in OCSI 2012calculation based on disaggregated data used for evaluation).
Data Collection/Evaluation
Institute an online data input and tracking tool for all government agencies and organizations offering programming for children, youth, and their families. (See also Planning and Implementation and Funding sections) Engage the Office of the Chief Technology Officer and agency technology staff in planning and implementation. These experts would help address tech and related challenges. (See also Planning and Implementation) Partners should establish a shared common language to facilitate information sharing and to reduce confusion (i.e. define age range for youth; tracking data at PSA or ward level). Similarly, participating agencies and partners should collect the same common data points. The city should implement a longitudinal evaluation of the initiative and youth participants to measure the effect of youth programming and engagement on academic achievement, job/career development, involvement in the criminal justice system, and health outcomes. The OCSI should use the Statewide Longitudinal Education Data (SLED) system as a model for developing a system to implement the recommendations stated above. Bring on a local college or university to perform the evaluation of the initiative. Add staff to assist with the data collection function. Require all DC government agencies, partners, and CBOs to use the DC ONE card to track youth participation. Require all partners to submit disaggregated data. Require District agencies to track the dollars allocated to summer programming, staffing, and planning.
Collaboration
Use web-based tool mentioned in Planning and Implementation to share information and facilitate connections between partners. Specifically, agency goals and plans should be shared on this site. Use the OCSI web portal to share information about upcoming events and programs related to achieving the OCSI goals. This information would be available to the public. Ensure all District government agencies and CBOs submit their summer program information to Answers, Please!/211. Also provide a link on the web-based OCSI portal to 211 to facilitate use of this resource and referral system for the benefit of youth and families. The summer collaboration should include CBOs, Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives, and other youth and community stakeholders earlier in the planning process in order to get their buy-in, and to more accurately align resources to the identified needs. 34
2012 One City Summer Initiative Summary of Findings The OCSI should also get more input from youth and their families directly as to what types of programs they want, and when and where they should be offered. Greater collaboration is needed between the initiative and local funders, the business community, and colleges and universities in order for these entities to provide meaningful support funding, sponsorships, jobs, resources, etc. to programs and youth participants.
Funding
Make funding available to expand summer initiative to a year-round effort. This includes additional funding to staff the coordinated system of programming for young people and their families. Fund the development and maintenance of a One City Children and Youth Initiative web portal. The portal would be used to share information, calendars, templates, etc. with all participating agencies and partners. (See also Planning and Implementation and Data Collection/Evaluation sections) Allocate resources so schools can be open to site CBO-organized and -staffed programs. Allocate funds for evaluation. Funding would be used to develop data collection and evaluation tools and processes, staff year-round assessment and evaluation work, and analyze and report data. (See also Data Collection/Evaluation section) Provide a robust selection of professional development opportunities for youth workers in DC government agencies and community-based organizations. A training institute, focused on developing skills throughout a youth worker's career, is essential and funding is required to make this component of positive youth development work a reality. The widespread use of DC ONE cards is essential for program planning and evaluation purposes. Funding is required to 1) support issuing the cards to all children and youth and 2) purchase the hardware and software for programs to track usage. (See Planning and Implementation and Data Collection/Evaluation sections)
35
CONCLUSION
Children and youth engaged in 2012 One City Summer Initiative activities had positive outcomes ranging from feeling safe in their program to feeling positive about the future to increasing soft skills. More than 40,000 children and youth ages 5 to 24 participated in 614 programs. Thousands of children and adults participated in community events. MPD's attention to crime and quality of life issues appears to have reaped benefits. A review of summer crime arrests revealed that juvenile arrests for aggravated assault and carjacking were down. Community walkthroughs to address unsafe and blighted properties resulted in tangible improvements for residents. One City Summer Initiative partners should be proud of the successes including new and improved partnerships and collaborations and the first planned effort-wide evaluation. The 2012 initiative implemented a more robust data collection process than what was in place last year, allowing the city to establish baseline data on youth participants and to provide a deeper analysis. Partners and supporters are already looking forward to starting work on planning for the summer of 2013. This summary of inititial findings should be used as part of the planning as it identifies both the successes and challenges for OCSI.
36
REFERENCES
Fitz-Gibbon, C. & Morris, L. (1987). How to design a program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Boston, MA: Pearsons Foundation. Hastings, S., Tsoi, R. & Harris, L. (2010). Building a comprehensive youth employment delivery system: Examples of effective practice. Washington, DC: CLASP.
37

DC Youth Investment

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DC Youth Investment

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Needs and Assets Assessment of Washington, DC Youth Executive Summary

DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation December 2011

Descriptive Overview of DC Youth

Table 1. Age Category by Sex in 2010

Table 2. Population and Race by Ward in 2010

Asian/Pacific Islander non4.2% 5% Hispanic Source: Neighborhood Info, 2011.

Number of youth Percent of DCPS students Number of youth

Percent of DCPS 9.3% students Source: DCPS, 2009.

Recreation and Extracurricular Activities

Ward 8 13% Ward 7 13%

Ward 2 9% Ward 3 14%

Ward 6 Ward 5 16% Ward 4 14%

Source: CYITC, 2011.

DCPS Reading PCS Reading DCPS Math PCS Math

Source: Education Policy Dashboard, 2010. Figure 4: DCPS Proficiency by School

Source: DCPS, 2009 and CYITC, 2011.

Table 6: DC Juvenile Arrests from 2009 to June 30, 2011

Source: MPD, 2010 and 2011.

Figure 4: Juvenile Arrests from 2006 to 2010

Source: CDC, 2008.

Results and Recommendations

Juvenile Arrests per Capita

203 202 202

301 301 302 302

11 304 304 303 304 303

307 308 307 607

K 607 ST NW 607 9TH ST SW

504 504 101

601 601 601

102 102 607

103 103 107 107

105 106 106 105

607 701 701

606 606 702 702

704 704 705 705

707 707 706 706 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

1% to 1.5% 1.5% to 2% 2 to 2.2% 2.2% to 3%

Proficient Students in DCPS

203 202 202

301 301 302 302

11 304 304 303 304 303

307 308 307 607

K 607 ST NW 607 9TH ST SW

504 504 101

601 601 601

102 102 607

103 103 107 107

105 106 106 105

607 701 701 702 702 704 704

40% to 59% 20% to 39% Below 20%

203 202 202

301 301 302 302

11 304304 303 304 303

307 308 307 607

K 607 ST NW 607 9TH ST SW

504 504 101

601 601 601

102 102 607

103 103 107 107

105 106 106 105

607 701 701 702 702 704 704

705 705 707 707 706 706 0 0.5 1 2 Miles

5% to 9% 10% to 14% 15% to 19% 21% to 25%