Cassandra J. Dorius and Dr. Vaughn R.A. Call, Sociology
With an estimated one quarter of America’s youth between the ages of 10 and 17 exhibiting signs of high risk or dysfunctional behaviors, organizations aimed at intervention and positive socialization have flourished over the past decade.1 Research has shown that within these organizations a social environment approach such as the establishment of peer groups, role modeling, and pro-social behavior rehearsal are the most effective means of fostering lasting behavioral and attitudinal changes among troubled teens.2 Applying similar mentoring techniques within our own community, the needs of Provo’s at risk youth are being addressed by Project Vision, a non-profit social program under the umbrella of the federally funded Community Action Center.
Currently, there are between 60 and 70 high risk adolescents-so called because of poverty level, gang involvement, criminal records, and other indicators-who are taking part in this relatively new program. The subjects are residents of Utah County and most are under the age of eighteen. Participation in the program is voluntary, and often begun as a result of their parents seeking some type of aid from the Community Action Center.
The expected outcomes of Project Vision are participation in appropriate activities with others, prevention of gang involvement, elimination and/or reduction of substance abuse, improved self image, and an increased ability to interact with others.
It has been imperative that Project Vision be evaluated for replication and funding purposes, but because its impact is assessed by determining, in part, whether or not illegal activity is taking place, the research must be conducted independent of the center.
The inherent risks in administering a survey dealing with unlawful juvenile behavior has led to many problems. The most paramount is that I have been instructed by the Institutional Review Board to temporarily not conduct my survey until certain revisions have been made. These revisions are currently being debated because they would censure all demographic information that could lead to a name/data linkage and therefore destroy the possibility of a time series investigation. My faculty mentor and I have written a defense of my project and have resubmitted the work. I am waiting for my completed survey to make its second trip through the IRB (over a two month process thus far) and I will administer the survey as soon as I get approval from administration. This research process has given me new insight into the world of professional scholarship as I have had to go through the same review board as faculty members. (I couldn’t go through my department’s IRB because I was working with the ‘risk group’ of people under the age of eighteen).
A second problem I ran into dealt with “goal trap,” an idea presented in my Research Methods class, but not understood until I tried to define the program goals my survey would assess. Every organization has goals which explain the reasons for its being. A burgerjoint would have the goal of selling burgers, and a movie theater would have the goal of being a place people could watch movies. A social program’s goals are not so easy to define and the administrators didn’t even want to try. The people in charge seemed afraid that their program will not pass the evaluation if they were judged by the lofty goals their organization was founded to achieve. Case in point: Project Vision personnel could not come to a consensus about what goals could be evaluated. Drug use and gang involvement might not decrease for every participant, so they did not want to use these stated goals as evaluation factors. The goal of improved self-esteem suddenly seemed difficult to guarantee, so it was also thrown out. After multiple meetings that ended no where, I found a printed statement of program goals. (It was included in a bid for more government money, and when money was involved they knew exactly what the program did to help people). We presented the goals to the administrator, and he (finally) agreed. The entire process ate up a lot of valuable research time, and I know I’ll be more wary of goal trap in the future.
I will also have more to report in the future. Currently, I have an original nine page questionnaire, a parent cover-letter and permission sheet, and a youth letter of introduction waiting to be employed.
The survey will be administered by myself at a scheduled weekly meeting. Project Vision personnel will not touch, administer, or have access to the questionnaire or raw data. The information will be safely stored, and when the study is complete all records that could identify a particular person will be destroyed.
This is a time series investigation, and demographic information collected in the first wave will allow me to do a follow up of the participants in six months. Given the program’s individual focus, it is critical to conduct a longitudinal study which contrasts time one and time two information to assess the impact of the program.
All of the questionnaire data will be coded and entered into an SPSS spreadsheet. I will use SPSS for all of the statistical manipulation of the data.
A possible model in our research will look at the relationships between involvement in Project Vision and scholastic achievement, feeling of self-worth, internal locus of control, and illicit behavior.3
References
- Dryfoos J, Adolescents-at-Risk: Prevalence and Prevention, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
- Jessor R, Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-risk Settings, American Psychologist; v.48, February 1997, 117-26.
- The aid of my faculty mentor, Dr. Vaugh Call, and my husband, Shawn, is gratefully acknowledged.