|
Abstract
|
This paper describes the implementation of a community-based youth violence prevention project that utilized an educational curriculum and a mass media campaign. The extent of penetration of the intervention into target areas and the degree of contamination of control areas are assessed, and the most frequently contacted forms of educational outreach are identified. Two sources of data, provider interviews and a random digit dialed telephone survey, were used to track the source and extent of teens' exposure to the intervention. Agency provider data revealed that 40% of the 92 contacted agencies actually conducted violence prevention education, reaching 22% of the target area teens. Approximately one-half of the surveyed teens reported some exposure to the program, with 13% of the teens in target areas reporting participation in interactive educational activities associated with the project. The most common source of exposure was the media campaign. Most teens report a single exposure, usually to the media campaign, although 29% report contact with more than one form of violence prevention education. While the project did not achieve community saturation, the data show that the community-based model of intervention for violence prevention is feasible and effective in reaching teenagers. This research highlights some difficulties in evaluating prevention programs, including reconciling community ownership with project identification, the ethics of curtailing services for control purposes, and factors influencing recall of participation.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this article by Hausman et al. was to assess the ability of the Violence Prevention Project to reach the targeted youths in the community and to address the difficulties in evaluating such prevention programs.
METHODOLOGY:
This study was a quasi-experimental design using a probability sample of a population of teenagers in the Boston area. The Violence Prevention Project (VPP) started in 1986-1989, as a comprehensive program emphasizing a community-based model. One aim was to establish a new community ethos to help redefine the value of violence. Two goals were sought, to create bonds between social agencies and to disseminate educational information as widely as possible. The central strategy of dissemination of information was implemented using a full 10-session Violence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents. The project also tried to establish community ownership of violence prevention. Flexibility in getting the word out was seen as imperative to a successful program. At the same time that the educational program was conducted, a mass media campaign was broadcast on television, and promotional items such as brochures, posters, and t-shirts were distributed.
The target population was two Boston neighborhoods with high homicide rates and low socio-economic status (SES). Surrounding neighborhoods were used as controls. Phase one of the evaluation began with a baseline survey conducted prior to exposure of the VPP. After the program had been in place for one year, phase two began with the collection of teen participation and exposure rates. This was accomplished by the collection of and cross referencing of client files, reports, and staff diaries from January 1987 through October 1988. Further information was gathered from agency providers who were interviewed in person and over the phone. Telephone interviews using a probability sample via random digit dialing were conducted on Boston area residents. Four hundred surveys were collected, 200 drawn from the two target communities and 200 from other Boston neighborhoods. Only households with teenagers were included. A significantly large proportion of teenagers between the ages of 15 to 19 were included in the sample, with proportional representation both in gender and race.
The interviews, data collection, coding, data entry and calculations of response rates were carried out by an independent marketing research firm. The data gathered was then compared to baseline values established at the beginning of the project. Although both adults and teen responses were collected, only teen responses were included in this paper. Questions in the interview solicited the teens' recollections of their exposure to the program such as classes taken, workshops attended, and personal discussions with staff about violence prevention. If teens identified educational sites, then exposure to VPP was assumed and noted. Because there was a possibility that multiple exposures were recorded, a true dose measure could not be determined. The phone interviews lasted 20 minutes and measured the knowledge and attitudes of the youths role in violence and other related risk factors. The teens were also asked about their recent exposure to violence and areas of location of these violent acts.
The types of analysis used by the research firm were not identified in this paper. This paper looked at rates of participation in VPP, percentage rates of patterns of exposure to VPP, and patterns of multiple exposure with regard to sex, race, and location.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
When exposure to media and education data were combined, results indicated that 32% of the targeted community teens were exposed to the VPP. Using educational exposure only, the results were between 13% and 22%. The authors noted that no other community based prevention programs have had similar levels of evaluation for comparison. It was noted that factors such as community ownership could have complicated the ability to measure the extent of any of the project's effects. Other project problems noted were possible reporting errors such as accuracy of teens participation in events, and the overlapping of participation by the teens in different events. Authors also thought it likely that the figures reported by the research firms may have represented the upper most limits. Some teens may have not recognized exposure to the VPP because they were also exposed to other agencies' social messages given in conjunction with the VPP material (e.g., drug abuse, or "just say no"). Also single exposure may not have warranted enough recall by these teenagers.
Contamination was seen as another area of concern. The project goal of confining the program to specific areas was not met. This may have been a result of court ordered bussing and some programs that had been conducted outside target boundaries.
One limit of this paper was not having the data necessary to quantitatively define the sources of error effecting the reports from agencies and teenagers. Response rates from the telephone survey were thought to be low because of the non-availability of inner-city teenagers. This would then impact the sample taken because it may not have included the most at-risk teens. However, the authors felt that this project still targeted the youths who would have been effected by the VPP. It was thought that this project did not achieve saturation of the community, however, it did show the feasibility of a community based VPP.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors felt that further studies would increase our knowledge of effective strategies in dealing with violence in our communities. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Massachusetts
KW - Program Evaluation
KW - Community Based
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Prevention Program
KW - Violence Prevention
KW - At Risk Juvenile
KW - At Risk Youth
KW - Urban Environment
KW - Urban Youth
KW - Education Program
KW - Prevention Education
KW - Curriculum
KW - Late Adolescence
KW - Early Adolescence
Language: en |