Charles E. Shannon Local Action Research Partner Report
Haverhill-Methuen 2008
The impact of the VIP program:
Results of quantitative data collection
submitted by:
Emily F. Rothman, ScD
Allyson Baughman, MPH
Boston University School of Public Health
January 26, 2009
1
Executive Summary
In FY08, the Merrimack Valley cities of Haverhill and Methuen, located in Northeast
Massachusetts, received a Charles E. Shannon (CSI) grant from the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Public Safety for the purpose of preventing youth gang membership. The prevention
plan of the Haverhill-Methuen partnership comprised several activities, including strategic
policing and suppression, community coalition building, and youth outreach and anti-violence
programming. An evaluation team from the Boston University School of Public Health
(BUSPH) was selected as the “Local Action Research Partner” (LARP) for the HaverhillMethuen CSI grant. The LARP conducted a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the
Haverhill-Methuen school-based prevention strategy called the Violence Intervention Prevention
Team (VIP). This report presents the methodology and results of the quantitative evaluation.
(This report is a companion document for the report entitled: “The impact of the VIP program:
Results of qualitative data collection.”)
To assess whether participants in VIP experienced particular changes in knowledge,
attitudes and behavior during the course of one academic semester, a pre-experimental (pre/post) evaluation design was used. A total of 48 students participated in the pre-test and 29
participated in the post-test. These students were representative of VIP students overall.
Key findings include:
•
On the pre-test, six percent of VIP students reported ever having belonged to a gang, and
23% reported having friends in a gang during the past month.
•
On the pre-test, approximately one-third of VIP students (31%) reported ever having hit
or sexually assaulted a dating partner.
•
On the pre-test, one-half (50%) reported having friends who used physical violence (i.e.,
hitting) against someone else in the past month.
•
A number of findings suggest that the VIP program may have had a positive impact on
students. For example, the proportion of students who reported no school absences in
one month increased from 23% at pre-test to 48% at post-test (p<.05) (Table 2).
•
At post-test, the students were more likely to report that their teachers would probably
rate their academic performance as “very good” as at pre-test (44% vs. 29%,
respectively) (NS) (Table 3).
•
Students also appeared to make substantial gains in terms of their employment readiness
over the course of the semester that they were involved with VIP. At post-test, students
were 40% more likely to agree with the statement: “I know that I can succeed at work” as
they were at pre-test (Table 2) (p<.10).
2
•
The majority of VIP students anticipated being injured in a fight during the next month,
even at post-test. This suggests that anti-violence efforts need to be strengthened and
continue.
Introduction
In FY08, the Merrimack Valley cities of Haverhill and Methuen, located in Northeast
Massachusetts, received a Charles E. Shannon (CSI) grant from the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Public Safety for the purpose of preventing youth gang membership. The prevention
plan of the Haverhill-Methuen partnership comprised several activities, including strategic
policing and suppression, community coalition building, and youth outreach and anti-violence
programming.
An evaluation team from the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) was
selected as the “Local Action Research Partner” (LARP) for the Haverhill-Methuen CSI grant.
The evaluation team participated in multiple Haverhill-Methuen CSI activities during FY08,
including facilitating data collection and analysis, coordinating Steering Committee meetings,
providing input on the problem definition, and on the selection of strategies and outcomes. In
addition, the LARP conducted a focused evaluation of the Haverhill-Methuen school-based
prevention strategy called the Violence Intervention Prevention Team (VIP). This report
presents the methodology and results of that evaluation.
Members of the Haverhill-Methuen project implementation and Local Action Research
Partner teams were as follows:
The project implementation team (key personnel only):
Carol Ireland, Haverhill High School
Lori Curry, Haverhill Middle Schools
Donald Thompson, Deputy Chief, Haverhill Police Department
Linda Soucy, Methuen Arlington Neighborhood Group
Thomas Fram, Captain, Methuen Police Department
Mae Dunn, Data analyst, Haverhill Police Department
The Local Action Research Partner team:
Emily Rothman, ScD, Boston University School of Public Health
Allyson Baughman, MPH, Boston University School of Public Health
Description of the Violence Intervention Prevention (VIP)
Team
The Violence Intervention Prevention Team (VIP) was established in 2006 subsequent to
the Haverhill-Methuen partnership’s first CSI grant. In the most basic terms, VIP is a
specialized after-school club. Haverhill High School students can seek membership on the
“team” through the advisors, Ms. Carol Ireland, Haverhill High School’s Teen Parent Specialist,
3
and Ms. Lori Curry, Health Specialist for Haverhill Middle Schools. Ms. Ireland supervises the
VIP physical space, which is a large room within Haverhill High School, renovated with up-todate equipment and furnishings. The VIP room is furnished with several couches, educational
books and magazines, anti-violence and health posters, photographs of current and past VIP team
members, musical instruments and art supplies. There are also several internet-connected
computers, a dance floor, a video game console and a plasma television. The room is meant to
create an inviting alternative to the streets and other unsupervised and unsafe settings. Ms.
Ireland and Ms. Curry, ensure that VIP team members are provided with free homework
assistance, snacks, workshops on topics such as money management and employment, and even
occasional field trips and retreats. The main activities for VIP members include weekly
meetings, which offer a variety of activities and trainings related to violence prevention and
conflict resolution. Members serve as positive role models and work to develop activities and
strategies to promote peace in their school, the middle schools and the community at large.
Currently there are approximately 60 student VIP members and a waiting list of 20+
more. There are several ways that students become involved with VIP. In many cases, students
self-refer or are recruited by peers. In other instances, a teacher may observe a student’s
academic performance rapidly decline and approach Ms. Ireland about recruiting that individual.
VIP is never used as a punishment. Advisors may offer membership to an at-risk student, but no
one is ever compelled or persuaded to join. Once a student decides to join VIP, there are both
behavioral and academic expectations they must uphold in order to remain a member. Due to the
popularity and positive reputation of VIP among students, they have more requests for
membership than capacity.
One of the most striking features of VIP is that it appears to function as a strong social
“in-group” for members. Our qualitative research revealed that members take their membership
status extremely seriously, and some will go to great lengths to safeguard the positive reputation
of the group—including policing themselves and dissociating from VIP when they’ve violated its
rules in order to preserve VIP’s integrity and image to the school community. When they join,
VIP members pledge not to engage in any violence, including physical, verbal or emotional
aggression. The cultural norms of the group, however, extend beyond non-violence. Many
students who join VIP seem to develop a genuine enthusiasm for modeling and promoting prosocial and respectful behaviors.
Study Design
To assess whether participants in VIP experienced particular changes in knowledge,
attitudes and behavior during the course of one academic semester, a pre-experimental (pre/post) evaluation design was used. In January of 2008, 48 VIP students completed a 96-item
survey (called a ‘pre-test’). In May of 2008, 29 students completed the same survey (called a
‘post-test’). The evaluation team analyzed changes in how students responded to survey
questions at the two different points in time. This study received human subjects approval from
the Boston University School of Public Health Institutional Review Board.
4
Sample
The goal of this evaluation was to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors
among VIP members, so the ‘sampling frame’ was all students who were members of VIP. VIP
students differ from Haverhill High School students in terms of their race/ethnicity. VIP
members are more likely than Haverhill High School students to be Black (13% vs. 4.5%,
respectively), Hispanic (56% vs. 24%, respectively), or multiracial (17% vs 0.2%, respectively).
While we were unable to obtain data from every VIP student member, the demographics of
participants reflect the demographics of VIP members overall as estimated by the VIP
coordinators. In total, out of a membership pool of approximately 80 students, 48 VIP students
(60%) participated in the pre-test and 29 (36%) participated in the post-test.
Measures
Our pre-/post-test included a wide variety of measures on numerous outcomes of
potential interest, including school absenteeism, association with delinquent peers, use of violent
behaviors, and gang involvement. A summary of our measures used is below:
Concept
assessed
Name of
measure
Number Source
of items
Reliability/Valid
ity (if available)
Demographics
School
absenteeism
School sports
participation
School bonding
Original (no name)
Original (no name)
3
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Original (no name)
1
N/A
N/A
Add Health Survey
10
N/A
Readiness to be
employed
Work Opinion
Questionnaire
8
Beliefs About
Conflict
NYC Youth
Violence Survey
10
Gangs
Attitudes towards
Gangs
4
Depression
Modified
Depression Scale
6
Self Esteem
Modified Rosenberg
Self-Esteem
Inventory
4
Harris, Kathleen Mullan, Carolyn Tucker Halpern,
Pamela Entzel, Joyce Tabor, Peter S. Bearman, and
J. Richard Udry. 2008. The National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health: Research Design
[WWW document]. URL:
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design
Johnson CD, Messe LA, Crano WD. Predicting job
performance of low income workers: The Work
Opinion Questionnaire. Personnel Psychology 1984;
37(2):291-299.
Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH),
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion. New York City Youth Violence Survey.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 1993b.
Nadel H, Spellmann M, Alvarez-Canino T, LausellBryant L, Landsberg G. The cycle of violence and
victimization: a study of the school-based
intervention of a multidisciplinary youth violence
prevention program. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 1996;12(5 Suppl):109-119
Orpinas P. Skills training and social influences for
violence prevention in middle schools: a curriculum
evaluation. Doctoral Dissertation. Houston, TX:
university of Texas Health Science Center at
Houston, School of Public Health, 1993.
(Unpublished)
Rosenberg M. Society and adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universtiy Press, 1965.
Internal consistency:
0.54
N/A
Internal consistency:
0.74
Internal consistency:
0.74
Internal consistency:
0.50
5
Violence and
Delinquency
Physical
Fighting
Likelihood of
Violence and
Delinquency
Youth Risk
Behavior Survey
8
5
Friend’s
Delinquent
Behavior
Adolescent Attitude
Survey
7
Drug and
Alcohol Abuse
Youth Risk
Behavior Survey
3
Delinquent
Behavior
SAGE Survey
9
Teen Conflict
Survey (TCS)
6
Perpetration in
Dating
Relationships
14
Dating Violence
Flewelling RL, Paschall MJ, Ringwalt CL. SAGE
Baseline Survey. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Research Triangle Institute, 1993. (Unpublished)
Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH),
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion. New York City Violence Survey.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 1993b.
Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research and
the Comer School Development Program. Middle
School Project: Adolescent Attitude Survey.
Houston, TX: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy
Research, 1995. (Unpublished)
Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH),
Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion. New York City Violence Survey.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 1993b.
Flewelling RL, Paschall MJ, Ringwalt CL. SAGE
Baseline Survey. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Research Triangle Institute, 1993. (Unpublished)
Bosworth K, Espelage D, Teen Conflict Survey.
Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent Studies,
Indiana University, 1995. (Unpublished)
Foshee VA, Linder, Bauman KE, et al. The Safe
Dates Project: theoretical basis, evaluation design,
and selected baseline findings. American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, 1996;12(5 Suppl): 39-47.
Internal consistency:
0.89
Kappas range from
36.1% to 87.5%
Internal consistency:
0.55 to 0.68
Kappas range from
36.1% to 87.5%
N/A
Internal consistency:
0.79
Internal consistency:
0.93
Data Collection
The Haverhill High School principal approved data collection before it took place. The
survey and data collection protocols were reviewed and approved by the VIP coordinators (Ms.
Ireland and Ms. Curry). Data were collected by a trained master’s degree-level research assistant
(Ms. Nicole Daley). The VIP coordinators informed VIP students that they would have the
opportunity to participate in the evaluation study in advance of the pre-test data collection date.
On the date of the pre-test (January 2008), students were invited to assemble in a reserved
classroom after school. The research assistant explained the purpose of the evaluation to them,
read them the assent form, and asked for their assent. All students assented to participate.
Parental consent was not required. Each student was given an index card with an ID number on
it. Ms. Ireland retained a master list that linked each ID number to a student name. Students
completed the pencil-and-paper pre-test. When they completed the pre-test, they handed it to the
research assistant. As compensation for their time, they were offered pizza and soda. On the
date of the post-test (May 2008), the same procedures were followed, although students were
unable to look up their original ID numbers on the master list because it had been misplaced.
Statistical Analysis
Pre-test and post-test results were hand-entered into an Access database and then
analyzed using STATA. Because the master list with ID numbers was not available at the time
of the post-test, student surveys were not linked and therefore were not able to be analyzed as
matched sets. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted. Frequencies and proportions were
calculated. Chi-square and t-tests for statistical significance were used.
6
Results
A complete set of pre- and post-test results data are attached in the appendix (see Tables
5-20). Key findings of interest are presented in this section. Note that some findings are
relevant although they did not reach statistical significance. Although the differences were large,
there were insufficient numbers of participants to reach statistical significance. Non-statistically
significant findings may still have importance and relevance for program planning purposes.
On the pre-test 17% of participants reported that they had ever been arrested in their
lifetime. Six percent reported ever having belonged to a gang, and 23% reported having friends
in a gang during the past month. Approximately one-third (31%) reported ever having hit or
sexually assaulted a dating partner, 35% reported past-month alcohol use, and 8% reported pastmonth marijuana use. One-half (50%) reported having friends who used physical violence (i.e.,
hitting) against someone else in the past month.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of pre-test participants
Characteristic
% (n)
Total
100% (48)
Sex
Female
60% (29)
Male
38% (18)
Race
Black or African-American
13% (6)
Hispanic/Latino
56% (27)
White
8% (4)
Other
8% (4)
Arrested in lifetime
17% (8)
Ever belonged to a gang
6% (3)
Ever hit or sexually assaulted dating partner
31% (13)
Past month, friends in gang
23% (11)
Past month, friends hit someone
50% (24)
Past month, drank alcohol
35% (17)
Past month, used marijuana
8% (4)
A number of findings suggest that the VIP program may have had a positive impact on
students. For example, the proportion of students who reported no school absences increased
from 23% at pre-test to 48% at post-test (p<.05) (Table 2). The proportion of students who
reported participating in a school sports team or after-school club for 15-20 days in the past
month also increased from 21% at pre-test to 35% at post-test [not statistically significant (NS)]
(Table 3). At post-test, the students were more likely to report that their teachers would probably
rate their academic performance as “very good” as at pre-test (44% vs. 29%, respectively) (NS)
(Table 3).
7
Table 2. Statistically significant positive changes from pre- to post-test
Outcome
Pre-test
Post-test
Chi-sq p-value
No school absences in the past
month
23%
48%
p<.05
I know that I can succeed at work
(strongly agree)
64%
82%
p<.10
In the past month, none of my
friends suggested that I damage
property
69%
96%
p<.01
Students also appeared to make substantial gains in terms of their employment readiness
over the course of the semester that they were involved with VIP. At post-test, students were
40% more likely to agree with the statement: “I know that I can succeed at work” as they were at
pre-test (Table 2) (p<.10). Conversely, the proportion of students who agreed with the statement
“I admire people who can get by without working” decreased by half (Table 7) (NS).
Student attitudes about violence improved during the semester. At the end of the
semester, students were 1.4 times as likely as at the beginning of the semester to report that they
would consider whether they would get into trouble before getting into a fight, and 1.4 times less
likely to report that if someone hit them first, their family would want them to hit the person
back (Table 3). Students were also 2.2 times more likely to report that their friends had stopped
a fight in the past month at post-test as compared to pre-test (Table 3). While the proportion
reporting gang involvement did not change substantially from pre-test to post-test, there was a
small difference in the proportion of students reporting that none of their friends were involved
in gang activity from pre- to post-test (76% vs. 83%, respectively)(Table 3).
Table 3. Other positive changes from pre- to post-test (not statistically significant)
Outcome
Pre-test
Post-test
Teachers thinking performance compared to
classmates is “very good”
29%
44%
When deciding whether to get into a fight,
consider whether you would get into trouble
30%
41%
If someone hit me first, my family would want
me to hit them back
71%
50%
If I was going to be in a fight, I would feel safer if
I had a gun (agree)
7%
0%
In the past month, none of my friends were
involved in gang activity
76%
83%
In the past month, all or most of my friends
stopped a fight
11%
24%
There were some outcomes that evidenced no change from pre- to post-test. Some of the
outcomes were endorsed by such a high proportion of students on the pre-test that it was not
possible for them to increase by post-test (i.e., a “ceiling effect”). Other outcomes, such as
“during the past month, grades were mostly As or Bs,” we might have anticipated to change in a
positive direction but did not (Table 4). Notably, the proportion of students reporting that within
8
the next month it was likely that they would get injured in a fight did not decrease over the
course of the semester, and it was quite high (75% and 79%, pre-/post) (Table 4).
Table 4. Selected outcomes that did not change from pre-test to post-test
Outcome
Pre-test
Post-test
During past month, grades were mostly As or Bs
56%
56%
Within the next month, not at all likely that you
will carry a gun
100%
90%
In a fight 0 times in past 30 days
96%
86%
0 days drinking in past 30 days
67%
59%
Within the next month, it’s likely that you will
get injured in a fight
75%
79%
Discussion
There are several indications that the VIP program may have had a positive impact on
student members during the spring semester of the 2007-08 school year. In particular, their
knowledge about violence and attitudes towards violence, school and work seems to have
improved. For example, it appears that students’ attitudes—and students’ families’ attitudes—
about physical fighting was altered over the course of the semester. In addition, students appear
to have improved their school attendance, engagement in their classes (if not their grades),
readiness to become employed, and to have changed their peer group associations positively (i.e.,
to discontinue friendships with delinquent and gang-involved peers). However, not all outcomes
were positive. According to student self-reports, their grades did not improve over the course of
the semester, their alcohol use did not decrease substantially, and a very high proportion (~75%)
anticipated being injured in a physical fight in the next month, even at post-test.
It is important to give the VIP program full credit for the positive changes that it likely
evinced. It is well known that it is difficult to create behavior change (Bartholomew, Parcel,
Koh & Gottlieb, 2006), and this may have been particularly difficult to accomplish over the
course of one school semester. It is entirely possible that a longer-term evaluation would have
found differences even on behavioral outcomes. Moreover, there are several limitations of this
study design that should be taken into consideration. All data were self-reported. An objective
analysis of student grades, for example, might find improvement over the course of a semester or
year. In addition, this study used a pre-experimental design. Without a control or comparison
group, it is not possible to attribute changes that were detected to the intervention. It is possible,
though not probable, that changes that were detected were due to school-wide or city-wide
initiatives that affected all students in Haverhill.
9
Conclusions
Taken together, the findings of this evaluation suggest that the VIP program was
successful in many respects and is a worthwhile asset to the school and community. In
particular, participation in VIP appears to have reduced student absenteeism, changed attitudes
about violence, provided students with new social supports (i.e., non-delinquent peers), created
readiness for employment, and improved students’ engagement in their classes. However, there
was no clear evidence that certain negative behaviors (e.g., physical fighting, alcohol use) had
changed. The program should continue to seek new and improved ways of improving students’
academic performance, pro-social behaviors, and resistance to physical fighting.
10
References
Bartholomew, L.K.; Parcel, G.S.; Kok, G; and Gottlieb, N.H. (2006). Planning Health
Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
11
APPENDICES
12
Table 5. Academic outcomes
In the past month…
Number of days participate in
sport/club
15-20 days
10-14 days
5-9 days
1-4 days
Number of days absent from
school
I have not been enrolled
in school
15-20 days
10-14 days
5-9 days
1-4 days
0 days
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
21% (10)
27% (13)
33% (16)
15% (7)
35% (10)
7% (2)
41% (12)
17% (5)
0% (0)
0% (0)
6% (3)
0% (0)
8% (4)
60% (29)
23% (11)
0% (0)
3% (1)
7% (2)
41% (12)
48% (14)
13
Table 6. School Bonding
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
I feel safe at school
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Almost always
No response
2% (1)
2% (1)
15% (7)
21% (10)
54% (26)
4% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
7% (2)
17% (5)
66% (19)
10% (3)
The teachers at school treat students fairly
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Almost always
No response
0% (0)
4% (2)
29% (14)
27% (13)
33% (16)
4% (2)
3% (1)
10% (3)
38% (11)
10% (3)
38% (11)
0% (0)
I feel like I am part of my school
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Almost always
No response
0% (0)
2% (1)
27% (13)
29% (14)
31% (15)
6% (3)
0% (0)
7% (2)
41% (12)
14% (4)
38% (11)
0% (0)
I feel close to people at school
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Almost always
No response
2% (1)
4% (2)
23% (11)
27% (13)
42% (20)
2% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
31% (9)
35% (10)
31% (9)
3% (1)
What do your teachers think about your performance
compared to classmates?
Very good (vs. all other)
29% (12)
44% (12)
25% (12)
33% (16)
29% (14)
0% (0)
10% (5)
41% (12)
31% (9)
14% (4)
7% (2)
7% (2)
During the past month, how were your grades?
Mostly As
Mostly Bs
Mostly Cs
Mostly Ds
Mostly Fs
No response
23% (11)
33% (16)
25% (12)
2% (1)
2% (1)
6% (3)
28% (8)
28% (8)
21% (6)
7% (2)
0% (0)
17% (5)
My parents expect me to graduate from HS
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No response
98% (47)
0% (0)
2% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
97% (28)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
0% (0)
My parent expect me to go to college
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No response
71% (34)
21% (10)
4% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
2% (1)
72% (21)
21% (6)
7% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
Very good
Good
Average
Below average
No response
Chi-square
p-value
p<0.177
14
I expect to go to college
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No response
83% (40)
13% (6)
2% (1)
0% (0)
2% (1)
0% (0)
83% (24)
14% (4)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
Most of my close friends will go to college
Strongly Agree and Agree (vs. all others)
96% (46)
97% (28)
48% (23)
38% (18)
4% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
10% (5)
41% (12)
52% (15)
0% (0)
3% (1)
0% (0)
3% (1)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No response
p=.309
15
Table 7. Work Opinion Questionnaire
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
I am not ready to handle a part time job
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0% (0)
4% (2)
30% (14)
65% (31)
3% (1)
7% (2)
21% (6)
69% (20)
I have enough skills to do a job well
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
63% (30)
33% (16)
0% (0)
2% (1)
62% (18)
38% (11)
0% (0)
0% (0)
I know I can succeed at work
Strongly Agree (vs. all other)
64% (30)
82% (23)
63% (30)
31% (15)
2% (1)
2% (1)
79% (23)
17% (5)
0% (0)
0% (0)
I would take almost any kind of job to get money
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
17% (8)
38% (18)
31% (15)
13% (6)
7% (2)
31% (9)
48% (14)
7% (2)
I admire people who get by without working
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0% (0)
15% (7)
54% (26)
29% (14)
0% (0)
7% (2)
48% (14)
41% (12)
The only good job is one that pays a lot of money
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
4% (2)
25% (12)
42% (20)
23% (11)
3% (1)
17% (5 )
55% (16)
21% (6)
Working hard at a job will pay off in the end
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
69% (33)
25% (12)
4% (2)
0% (0)
69% (20)
24% (7)
3% (1)
0% (0)
Most jobs are dull and boring
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
4% (2)
8% (4)
69% (33)
17% (8)
0% (0)
21% (6)
52% (15)
21% (6)
Mean average= 26;
Range: 20 to 32
Mean average=26;
Range: 21-32
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Chi-square
p-value
p<0.10
16
Table 8. Beliefs About Conflict
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
Chisquare
p-value
30%
41%
p<0.367
4% (2)
17% (8)
29% (14)
15% (7)
31% (15)
3% (1)
14% (4)
38% (11)
21% (6)
14% (4)
Threatening to use a weapon is an effective way to avoid a fight
Yes
No
Don’t Know
4% (2)
88% (42)
6% (3)
3% (1)
86% (25)
10% (3)
Avoiding or walking away from someone is an effective way to
avoid a fight
Yes
No
Don’t Know
83% (40)
6% (3)
8% (4)
83% (24)
10% (3)
7% (2)
Carrying a weapon is an effective way to avoid a fight
Yes
No
Don’t Know
2% (1)
88% (42)
8% (4)
0% (0)
93% (27)
7% (2)
Apologizing is an effective way to avoid a fight
Yes (vs. all other)
86%
92%
67% (32)
10% (5)
21% (10)
83% (24)
7% (2)
10% 3)
71% (30)
57% (13)
63% (30)
25% (12)
13% (6)
45% (13)
35% (10)
17% (5)
If someone attacked me, my family would want me to defend myself
w/ weapon
Yes
No
Don’t Know
27% (13)
65% (31)
8% (4)
31% (9)
55% (16)
10% (3)
If I was going to be in a fight, I would feel safer if I had a knife
Yes
No
Don’t Know
6% (3)
85% (41)
8% (4)
7% (2)
76% (22)
17% (5)
If I was going to be in a fight, I would feel safer if I had a gun
Yes ( vs. all other)
7% (3)
0% (0)
6% (3)
90% (43)
4% (2)
0% (0)
90% (26)
10% (3)
Important when deciding to get into a fight
Whether you would get into trouble (vs. all other)
What friends think
What parents think
Whether you would get into trouble at school
Whether you would get hurt
Other
Yes
No
Don’t Know
If someone hit me first, my family would want me to hit them back
Yes (vs. all other)
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Yes
No
Don’t Know
p<0.469
p<0.225
p<0.183
17
During the past 30 days, how many days did you carry a weapon?
0 days
1 day
2 or 3 days
4 or 5 days
6 or more days
96% (46)
2% (1)
2% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
97% (28)
0% (0)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
Mean Average = 16.6;
Range: 9 to 34
Mean average= 18.3;
Range= 12-31
18
Table 9. Attitudes Towards Gangs
I will probably join a gang
True
False
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
0% (0)
100% (47)
3% (1)
96% (28)
I think it’s cool to be in a
gang
True
0% (0)
False
100% (47)
0% (0)
100% (29)
I belong to a gang
True
False
3% (1)
97% (28)
0% (0)
100% (47)
Have you ever belonged to a
gang?
Yes
6% (3)
No
94% (45)
14% (4)
80% (23)
19
Table 10. Modified Depression Scale
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
In the past 30 days…
Were you ever sad?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
2% (1)
19% (9)
60% (29)
17% (8)
0% (0)
7% (2)
35% (10)
35% (10)
21% (6)
3%(1)
Were you grouchy or irritable or in a bad
mood?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
4% (2)
25% (12)
42% (20)
21% (10)
6% (3)
7% (2)
31% (9)
38% (11)
17% (5)
3% (1)
Did you feel hopeless about the future?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
40% (19)
40% (19)
17% (8)
0% (0)
2% (1)
41% (12)
35% (10)
14% (4)
10% (3)
0% (0)
Did you feel like not eating or eating more
than usual?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
38% (18)
23% (11)
19% (9)
13% (6)
6% (3)
41% (12)
17% (5)
24% (7)
17% (5)
0% (0)
Did you sleep more or less than usual?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
6%(3)
23% (11)
44% (21)
19% (9)
6% (3)
14% (4)
38% (11)
17% (5)
28% (8)
3% (1)
29% (14)
15% (7)
27% (13)
19% (9)
8% (4)
Mean average = 16
Range: 8 to 21
10% (3)
24% (7)
35% (10)
21% (6)
10% (3)
Mean average= 15
Range: 8 to 27
Did you have difficulty concentrating on
your school work
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
Chi-square
p-value
p< 0.8676
20
Table 11. Self-Esteem
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
How often would you say the following?
I am as popular as other people my age.
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
8% (4)
4% (2)
31% (15)
25% (12)
29% (14)
10% (3)
7% (2)
35% (10)
28% (8)
21% (6)
I wish I were a different person.
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
71% (34)
17% (8)
8% (4)
0% (0)
2% (1)
76% (22)
10% (3)
14% (4)
0% (0)
0% (0)
I feel like people pay attention to me at home.
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
10% (5)
6% (3)
17% (8)
21% (10)
42% (20)
10% (3)
17% (5)
17% (5)
24% (7)
31% (9)
0% (0)
17% (8)
10% (5)
19% (9)
50% (24)
Mean average = 16.1
Range: 10 to 20
0% (0)
3% (1)
17% (5)
35% (10)
45% (13)
Mean average= 15.7
Range: 11-19
After high school, I will get a job I really want.
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
21
Table 12. Likelihood of Violence and Delinquency
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
Within the next month, how likely is it that you will…
Get into a physical fight?
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
0% (0)
4% (2)
21% (10)
73% (35)
3% (1)
0% (0)
28% (8)
69% (20)
Carry a gun?
Not at all Likely (vs. all other)
100% (47)
90% (26)
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
98% (47)
0% (0)
3% (1)
7% (2)
90% (26)
Carry a knife?
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
0% (0)
2% (1)
6% (3)
90% (43)
0% (0)
3% (1)
7% (2)
90% (26)
Get injured in a fight?
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
0%(0)
4%(2)
15% (7)
75% (36)
0%(0)
3% (1)
17% (5)
79% (23)
Injure someone else in a fight?
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
4% (2)
4% (2)
8% (4)
77% (37)
3% (1)
3% (1)
14% (4)
76% (22)
Drink an alcoholic beverage?
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
2% (1)
25% (12)
19% (9)
50% (24)
3% (1)
28% (8)
14% (4)
55% (16)
Get drunk?
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
2% (1)
10% (5)
17% (8)
67% (32)
3%(1)
3% (1)
17% (5)
72% (21)
Get high on drugs?
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
0%(0)
2% (1)
6% (3)
88% (42)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
93% (27)
Mean average= 10.25
Range= 8-19
Mean average= 10.18
Range= 8-20
Chi-square
p-value
p<0.05
p<0.9482
22
Table 13. Physical Fighting- YRBS
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
Chi-square
p value
96% (45)
86% (25)
p<0.134
94% (45)
2% (1)
2% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
86% (25)
3% (1)
7% (2)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
How many times were you in a
fight in which you were
injured?
0 times
1 time
2 or 3 times
4 or 5 times
6 or more times
92% (44)
6% (3)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
93% (27)
7% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
How many times were you in a
fight on school property?
0 times
1 time
2 or 3 times
4 or 5 times
6 or 7 times
8 or 9 times
10 or 11 times
12 or more times
98% (47)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
100% (29)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
17% (8)
2% (1)
0% (0)
21% (6)
3% (1)
0% (0)
81% (39)
78% (22)
0% (0)
2% (1)
0% (0)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
96% (46)
97% (28)
During the past 30 days…
How many times were you in a
fight?
0 times (vs. all other)
0 times
1 time
2 or 3 times
4 or 5 times
6 or 7 times
8 or 9 times
10 or 11 times
12 or more times
In your lifetime, have you been
Arrested
Involved with DYS
Had a CHINS files against
you
None of the above
In the past 30 days, have you
been
Arrested
Involved with DYS
Had a CHINS filed against
you
None of the above
23
Table 14. Friend’s Delinquent Behavior
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
Chi-square
p-value
Over the past 30 days, how many of your friends…
Suggested that you do something against the law?
None (vs. all other)
70% (32)
83% (24)
p<0.201
All
Most
A Few
None
0% (0)
0% (0)
29% (14)
67% (32)
0%(0)
3% (1)
14%(4)
83% (24)
Did nearly all their homework?
All
Most
A Few
None
8% (4)
44% (21)
27% (13)
17% (8)
14% (4)
28% (8)
38% (11)
21% (6)
Damaged or destroyed property that didn’t belong to
them?
None (vs. all other)
69% (31)
96% (27)
All
Most
A Few
None
0% (0)
4% (2)
25% (12)
66% (31)
0% (0)
3%(1)
0% (0)
93% (27)
Participated in religious activities like go to church?
All
Most
A Few
None
10% (5)
19% (9)
44% (21)
21% (10)
7%(2)
38% (11)
48% (14)
3%(1)
Were involved in gang activities?
None (vs. all other)
76% (35)
83% (24)
All
Most
A Few
None
0%(0)
0% (0)
23% (11)
73% (35)
0% (0)
0% (0)
17% (5)
83% (24)
Stopped a fight?
All or Most (vs. all other)
11% (5)
24% (7)
All
Most
A Few
None
2% (1)
8% (4)
58% (28)
29% (14)
10% (3)
14% (4)
48% (14)
28% (8)
Hit or threatened to hit someone?
All
Most
A Few
None
2% (1)
2% (1)
42% (20)
50% (24)
3% (1)
3% (1)
35% (10)
57% (17)
Mean average = 18.8
Range: 16-24
Mean average= 19.4
Range= 16-24
P<0.005
p<0.492
P< 0.117
24
Table 15. Drug and Alcohol Abuse- YRBS
Pre-test
% (n)
During the past 30 days…
How many days did you
have at least one drink of
alcohol?
0 days (vs. all other)
67% (31)
0 days
1 or 2 days
3 to 5 days
6 to 9 days
10 to 19 days
20 to 29 days
All 30 days
Post-test
% (n)
Chi-square
p value
59% (17)
p< 0.441
65% (31)
19% (9)
6% (3)
2% (1)
4% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
59% (17)
28% (8)
10% (3)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
81% (39)
8% (4)
6% (3)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
86% (25)
10% (3)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
How many times did you use
marijuana?
0 times (vs. all other)
91% (42)
97% (28)
How many days did you
have 5 or more drinks of
alcohol in a row?
0 days
1 or 2 days
3 to 5 days
6 to 9 days
10 to 19 days
20 or more days
0 times
1 or 2 times
3 to 9 times
10 to 19 times
20 to 39 times
40 or more times
88% (42)
6% (3)
2% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
p<0.375
97% (28)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
25
Table 16. Disciplinary and Delinquent Behavior
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
When was the last time you…?
Stole something
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
4% (2)
13% (6)
6% (3)
15% (7)
60% (29)
0% (0)
10% (3)
0% (0)
28% (8)
62% (18)
Stole something worth > $50
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
2% (1)
4% (2)
0% (0)
4% (2)
88% (42)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
14% (4)
83% (24)
Damaged or destroyed property that didn’t belong to
you
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
0% (0)
4% (2)
2% (1)
19% (9)
73% (35)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
21% (6)
76% (22)
Were detained or arrested by the police
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
2% (1)
0% (0)
2% (1)
10% (5)
83% (40)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
17% (5)
79% (23)
Were required to appear in court for something you
had done?
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
4% (2)
2%( 1)
0% (0)
10% (5)
83% (40)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
14% (4)
79% (23)
Were sent to the principal or counselor for disciplinary
reasons
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
13% (6)
6% (3)
8% (4)
10% (5)
63% (30)
14% (4)
7% (2)
0% (0)
17% (5)
62% (18)
Skipped class
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
21% (10)
8% (4)
6% (3)
15% (7)
50% (24)
24% (7)
7% (2)
7% (2)
14% (4)
48% (14)
Were suspended or expelled from school
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
0% (0)
2% (1)
2% (1)
21% (10)
3% (1)
0% (0)
3% (1)
17% (5)
26
Never
Were fired from a job
Within the past month
B/w 1 and 6 months ago
B/w 6 months and 1 year ago
Over 1 year ago
Never
75% (36)
76% (22)
0% (0)
0% (0)
2% (1)
13% (6)
83% (40)
7% (2)
0% (0)
3% (1)
7% (2)
83% (24)
Mean average = 1.1
Range: 0 to 5
Mean average = 1.0
Range= 0 to 5
27
Table 17. Delinquent Behavior – Teen Conflict Survey
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
Chi-square
p-value
In the past 30 days, how many times…
Did you break a rule at home?
1-2 times (vs. 3 or more times)
31% (11)
52% (11)
p<0.120
Never
1 or 2 times
3 or 4 times
5 or 6 times
7 or more times
25%(12)
23% 11)
27% 13)
13% (6)
10% (5)
28%(8)
38% 11)
21% (6)
7% (2)
7% (2)
Did you break a rule at school?
Never (vs. 1 or more times)
40% (19)
52% (15)
Never
1 or 2 times
3 or 4 times
5 or 6 times
7 or more times
40% (19)
38% (18)
10% (5)
6% (3)
4% (2)
52% (15)
24% (7)
17% (5)
3% (1)
3% (1)
Did you break a rule/law in the community?
Never
1 or 2 times
3 or 4 times
5 or 6 times
7 or more times
81% (39)
8% (4)
4% (2)
2% (1)
0% (0)
83% (24)
10% (3)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
Did you get in trouble at home?
Never
1 or 2 times
3 or 4 times
5 or 6 times
7 or more times
27% (13)
33% (16)
29% (14)
2% (1)
6% (3)
31% (9)
45% (13)
14% (4)
7% (2)
3% (1)
Did you get in trouble at school?
Never (vs. 1 or more times)
77% (36)
62% (18)
Never
1 or 2 times
3 or 4 times
5 or 6 times
7 or more times
75% (36)
17% (8)
0% (0)
2% (1)
4% (2)
62% (18)
28% (8)
7% (2)
3%(1)
0%(0)
Did you get in trouble in the community?
Never (vs. 1 or more times)
98% (45)
90% (26)
Never
1 or 2 times
3 or 4 times
5 or 6 times
7 or more times
94% (45)
0% (0)
2% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
90% (26)
7% (2)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
Mean average = 10.45
Range:6-22
Mean average= 10.17
Range= 6-21
p<0.336
p<0.175
p<0.125
p<0.7674
28
Table 18. Perpetration in Dating Relationships
Pre-test
% (n)
Post-test
% (n)
How many times have you ever done the following things to a
date?
Slapped them
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
4% (2)
2% (1)
6% (3)
83% (40)
0% (0)
10% (3)
10% (3)
79% (23)
Physically twisted their arm
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
2% (1)
8% (4)
85% (41)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
93% (27)
Slammed or held them against the wall
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
2% (1)
6% (3)
88% (42)
0% (0)
0% (0)
14% (4)
86% (25)
Kicked them
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
2% (1)
0% (0)
10% (5)
83% (40)
0% (0)
3% (1)
7% (2)
90% (26)
Bent their fingers
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
2% (1)
13% (16)
81% (39)
0% (0)
3% (1)
14% (4)
83% (24)
Tried to choke them
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
0% (0)
2% (1)
94% (45)
0% (0)
3% (1)
0% (0)
97% (28)
Pushed, grabbed, or shoved them
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
2% (1)
4% (2)
17% (8)
73% (35)
0% (0)
7% (2)
14% (4)
79% (23)
Threw something at them that hit them
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
4% (2)
13% (6)
79% (38)
0% (0)
0% (0)
14% (4)
86% (25)
Forced them to have sex
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
96% (46)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
100% (29)
Forced them to do other sexual things they did not want to do
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
96% (46)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
100% (29)
Hit them with a fist
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
2% (1)
2% (1)
6% (3)
0% (0)
0% (0)
7% (2)
Chi-square
p-value
29
Never
85% (41)
90% (26)
Hit them with something besides a fist
Never (vs. 1 or more times)
93% (43)
100% (29)
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
0% (0)
6% (3)
90% (43)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
100% (29)
Beat them up
Never (vs. 1 or more times)
96% (44)
100% (29)
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
2% (1)
2% (1)
92% (44)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
100% (29)
Assaulted them with a knife or gun
10 or more times
4 to 9 times
1 to 3 times
Never
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
96% (46)
0% (0)
0% (0)
0% (0)
100% (29)
Mean average= 1.7
Range: 0 to 20
Mean average= 1.3
Range= 0-14
p<0.160
p<0.255
p<0.6636
30