Team Effort. Lisa White, Julie Bressler, Michael Rausch, Sally Crandall, Kurt Johnson, Director Hempfield Behavioral Health:

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Team Effort. Lisa White, Julie Bressler, Michael Rausch, Sally Crandall, Kurt Johnson, Director Hempfield Behavioral Health:"

Stephany Black
8 years ago
Views:

2 Acknowledgements Collaborating Investigators: Emilie Smith (PI) Daniel Perkins Linda Caldwell Wayne Osgood Howard Rosen University and Community Partners Hempfield Behavioral Health Penn State Survey Research Center Funded by NIDA, W.T. Grant and Wallace Foundations

3 Team Effort Penn State: Sharon Childs (Project Coordinator), Linda Halgunseth (Research Associate), Jason Rose (Postdoctoral Fellow), Kenyan Cattell (Administrative Assistant), Alba Blandino (Staff Assistant), Amanda Craig, Jill Schulte, Kaprea Johnson (Research Assistants) Survey Research Center: Lisa White, Julie Bressler, Michael Rausch, Sally Crandall, Kurt Johnson, Director Hempfield Behavioral Health: Alison Rosen (Supervisor), Coaches - Tabatha Hahn, Linda Moulder, Jamie Shraudner

4 Nearly 7 million children attend afterschool programs (Capizanno, Tout & Adams, 2000). The U.S. Government spends 1 billion dollars in afterschool programming Afterschool programs viewed as a safe haven from substance abuse, delinquency, and teen pregnancy Unsupervised and unstructured out-of -school time can be detrimental to adolescent development (Mahoney, Stattin, & Lord, 2004) Appropriately structure is beneficial (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Gottfredson et al., 2004). Interest in fostering positive youth development (PYD) (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Larson, 2000). As such, afterschool is an important setting to examine role in children s prosocial adjustment and behavior.

5 Effects of Afterschool Programs on Children Large proportion of delinquency occurs between 3 and 6pm (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Unsupervised out-of -school time can be detrimental (Mahoney, Stattin, & Lord, 2004) Afterschool programs as a safe haven from substance abuse, delinquency, and teen pregnancy Afterschool programs as a setting promoting positive youth development (Larson, 2000). Benefits of afterschool programs are moderated by structure and activities of the program (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Gottfredson et al., 2004).

6 Developmental Characteristics of Afterschool Settings (Eccles & Gootman, 2002) PASS Model P - Focus on prevention and promotion A Agency, involvement, and leadership among participating youth S Structure that is developmentally appropriate S - Supportive relationships with adults and potentially with peers?

7 The Good Behavior Game Long (40 year) history in school-based intervention (Baer, Wolf et al., 1969) Focus of rigorous, randomized, longitudinal trials (Kellam, Ialongo, Brown, and colleagues) Benefits for highest-risk aggressive boys in urban schools (Baltimore, MD) Current Science Migration Study Novel setting Afterschool Novel processes how does GBG work? Adult structure and support? Child collective efficacy? Settings-level effects

8 What Is PAX-GBG? Vision: My Wonderful School Posted behavioral guidelines Positive reinforcement and praise, correction, redirection, ( tootle notes, spleems) Child involvement in cooperative teams Training and consultation on PAX-GBG from coaches

9 Theory of Change Logic Model: Fostering Appropriate Structure and Support in Afterschool Settings CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS PROXIMAL OUTCOMES IMPACT: LONG- TERM OUTCOMES Program Mission Program Infrastructure Staffing Neighborhood/ Community Factors Socio-Cultural Context Promote structure and support in afterschool Training on PAX-GBG Collaborative visioning and goal-setting Weekly consultation and support Staff - shared norms Implementat ion of PAX- GBG Improved Staff structure and support Staff shared collective efficacy Youth shared norms, expectancies Supportive adult and youth relationships Youth Collective efficacy Positive Youth identity and acculturation Reduced chaos, overcontrol) Decreased youth problem behavior and adjustment

10 Sample of Afterschool Programs in Southeast Pennsylvania

11 Study Design

12 Multi-level Data Collection Time Information Source Fall Director Survey Staff Survey Student Survey (PDA) Site Observations Site director Staff Students Project field staff Winter Site Observations Project field staff Spring Director Survey Staff Survey Student Survey (PDA) Site Observations Site director Staff Students Project field staff Ongoing Attendance Implementation Data School-Related Data Program Files

13 Measure Observational Interrater Reliability- 3 Waves Promising Practices Ratings Scale Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale Youth Program Quality Assessment Interrater reliability : Average % agreement across waves Subscale Fall 2009 Winter 2010 Spring 2010 Supp. Rel. w/ Adults Supp. Rel. w/ Peers Appropriate Struct Level of Engage Chaos Harshness Sensitivity Detachment Permissiveness Active engagement Belonging Conflict resolution Staff pos. engage Responsibility Choice

14 Fostering Inter-rater Reliability Gold Standard Video Process Establish GSV by group of scientific experts Establish definitions and GSV ratings via consensus process Certify observers with GSV pre-deployment Examine in-field interrater reliability

15 Using Technology in Data Collection Observers Use Ruggid Laptops Facilitate efficient examination of inter-rater reliability Student Surveys conducted on PDA Infused with children s cartoon and jokes as breaks (Remember the Roadrunner?) Keeps children s attention and interest Allows daily transmission of survey data from the field

16 Child Survey Measures

17 Implementation Questions Allows us to see How much and for How long GBG is being used Eventually, will allow us to see if GBG implementation relates to changes in settings and child behavior Two Forms Staff Report Calendar Coaches Report Observations Bi-Weekly Feedback to staff to coaches

22 Test of Conceptual Model: Role of Children s Collective Efficacy Derived from agentic theory Views individuals as people who can produce desired effects when they have incentive to act. (Bandura, 1997, 2000). Distinguishes self-efficacy from collective efficacy CE is not simply the accumulation of individual self-efficacy, but rather the group s shared belief of achieving a common goal (Sampson, et al., 1999). Connected to Community Psychology Based upon premises of community, agency and empowerment (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Rappaport, 1981; Riger, 1993 Sarason, 1976; Zimmerman, 1995) Recent Research Interest has been rejuvenated by the work of Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls (1999) Definitions of CE Defined as a sense of mutual trust and cohesion and willingness to intervene on the behalf of the common good.

23 Research on Collective Efficacy Moderator of crime and violence in poor, at-risk neighborhoods. (Sampson et al., 1999). Role of intergenerational closure (adults and children feeling linked to each other) Yet, intergenerational closure, exchange, and social control have been found in neighborhoods with more concentrated affluence Studies of rural African American parents demonstrate that increases in CE were related to more authoritative parenting and less youth peer deviance and delinquency (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005) Collective efficacy (CE) among public school teachers Related to student s academic achievement (Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000, p.480). However, CE was lower in schools with more socioeconomic disadvantage. Very little research on children s collective efficacy

24 Developmental Model of Children s Collective Efficacy, Adjustment, and Behavior Wave 1 and Wave 4 Grade Gender e2 SDQ Difficulties Scale -.27 COLLECTIVE EFFICACY e e4 like to try smoking someday?.76 tried smoking already? e5 Fit Index Collective Efficacy Model x (7), p>.05 CFI 1.00 RMSEA.00

28 What Are We Learning? Fit of our conceptual model Supports role of children s collective efficacy in afterschool Ways to foster quality measures of afterschool settings Trends in implementation of various strategies in afterschool Preliminary findings on staff appropriate structure and support (e.g. decreased harshness and detachment) Potential ways to help strengthen afterschool programs

29 There is promise that we can strengthen afterschool programs!

30 Questions and Comments?

Risk and Resilience 101

Risk and Resilience 101 July 2004 Thirty years ago, most prevention efforts relied on fear. They tried to convince young people that smoking or using drugs would damage their health and ruin their futures.