EVALUATION PROPOSAL
SENIOR PROJECT SPRING 2000
By Paige Gupton, Katie Fortunato,
and Anne Line Hojem
INTRODUCTION
What works? This has been the most and major evaluation question in drug and alcohol abuse, prevention and treatment. Many programs and funding sources are concerned with accountability. Therefore, a better question is what works for whom, under what circumstances, and what is the monetary expense. Previous research shows that the use of drugs and alcohol abuse hurt society as a whole. By reducing the use of drugs and alcohol, crime and health-risks may decrease and community ties, self-esteem, and family relations may benefit. We will focus on both, alcohol and most drug use, with the New Hanover High School students because the Crossroads CO-OP program already sees both of these substances as important to this age group. Further, alcohol is more acceptable in our community. The students we will be dealing with are minors, however, we think they will be more honest with regard to alcohol since drugs are illegal and not acceptable to the norm at all.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Our senior project is with UNCW Crossroads, Substance Abuse Prevention and Educational Programs. We will be completing an evaluation with a need assessment for the CO-OP program, a substance abuse prevention program for New Hanover High School students. Crossroad Programs focus on educating students to make responsible decisions concerning drug and alcohol use. This organization provides up-to-date information to students on the effects of substances and how to cope with addictive behaviors.
Wu, Cernkovich and Dunn (1997) did a study on whether or not race and social class create a bias against juveniles in the justice system. Winters (1998) did a study emphasizing the link between delinquency and substance abuse. Winter’s project was more of a program proposal than an actual study addressing the problems between substance abuse and delinquency. Bilchik (1998) purposed restructuring of the juvenile justice court system. This article suggested a different program for the juvenile court system. Goldberg and Govrnali’s (1995) study was to assess school counselors’ knowledge in New York City, dealing with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD).
D. B. Towberman (1992) examines the need to develop assessment measures and the factors, which are currently reviewed in the United States concerning juvenile criminal behavior. We also spoke with Amy Williams, the substance abuse specialist for Crossroads, inquiring her opinions on the literature.
Methods Used In Past Literature
The methods of all the literature were of a quantitative nature. They all used existing data, secondary data, and cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys. Wu, Cernkovich and Dunn (1997) took a sample of 17 counties in Ohio representing a majority of juvenile cases for the state. Winters (1998) took clinical, community and school samples. Bilchik (1998) reviewed states and evaluations from previous criminal and juvenile justice public health and youth development records. Goldberg and Govrnali (1995) used needs assessment surveys based on a convenience sample of school counselors within the central New York area. Towberman (1992) constructed a survey using quantitative analysis of juvenile needs and included factors of the juvenile needs assessment.
Measurements in Past Literature
Wu, Cernkovich and Dunn (1997) measured the detention, adjudication and disposition, which were the dependent variables. The independent variables include demographic, social and legal aspects. Winters (1998) measured the effectiveness of the delinquency intervention programs, juvenile drug courts and diversion programs. Bilchik (1998) proposes a program that would measure assessment, detention, graduated sanction, after care and case management. Goldberg and Govrnali (1995) measured professional preparation of school counselors, their attitude toward counseling students with drug problems, the percentage of time they devote to drug counseling, factors that influence the amount of time they apportion to drug counseling, their goals for drug counseling, and areas in which they would like to receive additional preparation. Towberman (1992) measures substance abuse, emotional / psychological dysfunction, violent behavior, sexual abuse and deviancy, family problems, peer association problems, educational deficits and physical problems in regard to juvenile offenders. Towberman includes all these factors in his measurement as well as including whether or not any of the fifty states, including the District of Columbia are lacking a formal needs assessment instrument.
Findings of Past Research
The findings of past research on juvenile delinquency vary from study to study.
The major finding of Wu, Cernkovich and Dunn (1997) was that the poor and minorities are more symbolic than objective. This means their mere presence is a threat not what they pose’s, and means that there are no real evidence that poor and minorities use drugs more than any other social group. The upper classes see them as useless and disposable economically. Winters (1998) found that minor delinquency leads to alcohol use, leading to a rise of delinquency therefore resulting in marijuana and poly-drug use.
This is a good place to bring in Ms. Williams and her expertise in on this subject. She states, "It’s really too complex to say that one factor has more of an influence over another factor… Sometimes it’s a clear cut case where you’ll see delinquent type behaviors occurring before the arrival of their substance abuse." She does agree there is a correlation between the two but the relationship is not necessarily casual. Bilchik (1998) felt that their proposed program would increase the juvenile justice system responsiveness, juvenile accountability and program effectiveness. Further it would decrease the cost of juvenile corrections. Goldberg and Govrnali (1995) found that the participants considered drug counseling to be extremely important in the school system. However, most counselors participate in conferences and workshops on alcohol and drug education, but seldom deal with the concerns of tobacco use. If tobacco use was focused on as a gateway substance, it may be easier to identify young people at risk.
Another finding of Goldberg and Govrnali (1995) was counselor’s lack of availability. Time and money, limitations, in-service education, and administrative support prevent counselors from providing necessary education on tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs to students. Majority of the counselors in the study reported they need additional information on specific drugs. 90% said they needed to get more education on steroids, 70% reported a shortage on information regarding inhalants, stimulants, hallucinogens, depressants, narcotics, and over-the-counter drugs. Over 50% said they wanted more knowledge about marijuana, and less than 50% said stated a lack of sources about tobacco and alcohol.
Limitations of Past Research
Each of these studies came across limitations and problems. In Wu, Cernkovich and Dunn’s (1997) study did not include arrest and referral decisions. Without including all decision points their data became skewed. Winters (1998) problem was that both delinquency and substance abuse both increased at the same time. Therefore it is hard to determine an accurate temporal ordering. In order to restructure the juvenile justice system in Bilchik (1998) study a major limitation would be the ability to organize and sustain a community wide effort. Ms. Williams did not feel that she was educated enough on this limitation but did add her own personal opinion on this topic; "I would propose that in order for professionals within this area to meet the needs of the youth they serve, they need to embody a holistic approach. They should try to better understand youth’s motives, their emotions and thoughts, their family life, and their social-support network within their community (e.g. school, friends, work, etc.)." One limitation for Goldberg and Govrnali (1995) was the sampling design. Convenience sampling is often biased. This method is unable to assess the needs of counselors who never got the chance to be included in the study. The response rate was extremely low, only 37% responded, which creates a second limitation to the study. Aside from these limitations, this study found over all that unless counseling skills and drug knowledge are incorporated into the schools drug education and are given the time to be implemented, these programs become useless.
One problem to the findings of Towberman’s (1992) study was in most states the following need factors were important; substance abuse, emotional stability, family problems and parental problems, school problems, and intellectual impairment. One of the questions on the survey helped to provide a profile of high-need, high-risk juveniles. The profile helps states to recognize youths that have a chance to become at risk and therefore have time to prevent it from happening. After the needs were gathered from the survey they were grouped together to make a list of nine theoretical factor groupings. (See Appendix B).
A limitation to the findings of Towberman’s (1992) study would reflect on states' ability to afford the suggested recommendations of the study. Each state has its own budget and some have an overcrowding juvenile justice system. Because of this, a state might have to take a more focused approach to dealing with the needs of the juveniles involved in their system. Another issue this assessment regrets to address is the incorporation of different risk and need categories. High-risk delinquents may require treatment that is more specialized, whereas low-risk juveniles may not need the intense intervention called for to stop their involvement in delinquent behavior.
Conclusion of Past Literature
In conclusion, the literature provided different methods of surveying for needs assessments and a better understanding of the juvenile justice system. The analysis of the reviewed literature will be useful in implementing a survey of our own in regard to our evaluation of the Crossroads CO-OP Organization. Crossroads relationship to substance abuse in the school environment has the same goal; to improve and educate students on the consequences of substances. The socialization process has over time transformed from the family into the hands of the school system. This transition is attributed to economical and social changes. The need for dual-income families is taken precedence over the traditional "mother in the home, father in the work place". Because of both parents working extended hours in order to meet financial needs, children are remaining in school longer than before and after school care has become a new tradition. Due to this social change, the school has become the primary socialization agent including the importance to educate children on alcohol, tobacco, and other substances. Next semester we will contribute to this big pool of gathering information and hopefully find some other solutions to help alleviate this social problem. We look forward to working with UNCW Crossroads and we think this will be an extremely interesting project.
METHODS: RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Question
Is the Crossroad Prevention Program for New Hanover high school students’ effective, and does it helps decrease the alcohol and drug use/abuse among youths?
Hypothesis
We expect to find the program to be beneficial for the teens to a certain degree.
Data Collection Method
We will probably use several different methods to evaluate the drug and alcohol program. Individual interviews will be effective to assess what the program has already accomplished, and it has the advantages of few distractions. Open-ended questions allow the participant to talk freely, and if needed the researcher can read the test questions to the participant. We will also review organizational participants files to get insights into the teen’s behavior. File review record method will be low in cost and unobtrusive, it will not alter any of the participant’s behaviors. Until we fully understand the Crossroad Youth Program and what their expectations of us are, we do not know exactly what data collection methods we may use.
Interview guide
As earlier stated, we will use individual interviews. These will allow us to get more detailed answers from the participants. Our main source of information will be surveys about drug and alcohol use, family relations, school participation, and peer involvement. These will be totally confidential, and we will use closed-ended questions. These questions on the survey will be straightforward and the answers will be easy to code. Some of the examples we have provided are in the appendix.
Sampling
In order to get an unbiased sample of the group of high school students we will use a random sampling method. It will require us to get a list of all the students attending the school so everybody will have an equal chance of getting selected. Depending on the sample size needed, for example, if the sample size is 100 and the sampling frame is 1000; we will draw a random number between 1 and the total amount of subjects, and then do every 10th forward until we get to the desired sample size.
Data documentation
For the most part we plan to use audio documentation with some hand written responses. The reason being, if any of the subjects feel like they don’t want to be taped or feel uncomfortable answering a question, the tape recorder will be turned off and the response will be documented by hand. During the beginning of the interview we will insure the participant’s total confidentiality and inform them that the tape recorder can be stopped at any time during the questioning.
Length of Data Collection
Our research work in conjunction with Crossroads will begin in January 2000 and continue to May 2000. However the data collection will be going on from the beginning of the year until the first of April. That leaves us the whole month of April to analyze and evaluate the data and program.
Role of researcher
As social scientists we will clarify to the students that we are researchers doing our senior practical. The information we collect from the students will never be used against them and will always be kept anonymous. This may encourage students to be forthcoming and open up and we feel like we do have a great advantage by not being much older than the subject group. The advantage explained that we are closer to be a member of their peer group, instead of a parent/guardian figure. Our young age will hopefully appear to the students as less threatening than some of an older age. On the other hand, this may lead to students coming to us with personal problems. We are aware that we are not qualified as counselors, instead we will point towards professional help.
Data Analysis Plans
We will tabulate percentages of responses to all questions on our survey. At that point we will examine the differences in percentages or means across gender, race, year in school, etc. to see if the Crossroads CO-OP program is effective in the school, and other student needs should be instilled.
Ethics
We do promise total confidentiality and only disclose information if we feel like anyone’s life is endangered, which is required by law. We will make it clear that the reason for collecting the data will be to evaluate the Crossroads CO-OP program. We will keep all collected data in a locked file cabinet separate from Crossroads and New Hanover High School, which will only be accessible to the evaluators. We will not collect names of participants, and surveys will be anonymous.
Boundaries of the study
There are going to be certain boundaries to our evaluation of the alcohol and drug program. We are limited to a time frame of a little over 4 months. We might also run into problems with parents or participants that do not wish to contribute to the evaluation of the program. This may cause delay or bias in our research. Other concerns with the boundaries are truth and honesty. Alcohol and drugs are both illegal to the youth we are studying. This may lead to dishonest answers where the teens are hiding what is really going on in their life on these issues. It is very important that we give a complete impression to the youth that they will never get in trouble for honest answers no matter what it is, and that they will never be identified. As social researchers we will know their names on a personal level, but their information will be coded numerically.
Anticipated Problems
Some students may not want to be a part of the study for various reasons. We might find parents who refuse to let their children participate in the study. We can reduce this possibility by writing a detailed letter to parents/guardians about how this program is trying to better society and make it a safer place for their children. The study participant will have to get an inform consent form signed by their parents if under the age of 18, allowing us to interview their child with the understanding the data collected will be kept confidential. The form will have to be signed by parents/guardian if student is under the age of 18, however, the student have to sign regardless of age. We will explain that this will be an educational program for parent, student, school faculty, Crossroads, and for us as evaluators. We will also include in the letter that it is important to have effective alcohol and drug programs for the children that need help to get back on track
Limitations of Methods
Some limitations may be our access to the selected students files, or prior records from Crossroad that we at this time are planning on using. As mentioned earlier, we might have a problem approval of parents/guardians. Alcohol and drugs may scare the parents, and they may feel like having us talking to their child/children about these issues will increase their curiosity. Another limitation is students who will refuse to participate, or be dishonest. A final limitation that can occur is that the Crossroads CO-OP program has only been in effect since October 1998, and therefore many students may not be aware or familiar of the programs’ existence.
REFERENCES (in a separate file)
APPENDIX A: SURVEY (in a separate file)
"Substance Abuse: measures of drug and/or alcohol use or abuse by juvenile.
Emotional /Psychological Problems: emotional and/or psychological disturbances, including deficits in intellectual ability and social skills.
Violent Behavior: aggressive and harmful behavior toward others.
Sexual Abuse/Deviance: measures of sexual abuse of or by the juvenile; and degree of sexual adjustment of the youth.
Family Problems: measures of family dysfunction including emotional or physical abuse within the family; parental substance abuse or criminality; and measures of family trauma.
Peer Problems: measures of juvenile association with delinquent/criminal or substance abusing peers or siblings; socially inept or loner behavior; exploitive or manipulative behavior with peers.
Educational deficits: measures of educational deficits that indicate the need for remedial work (learning disabilities, not working to intellectual potential, etc.) and school problems (attendance or discipline problems).
Vocational deficits: lack of vocational training skills
Physical Problems: medical and physical problems such as head injury, chemical or hormonal imbalance, handicap, or illness."