Targeted Outreach - Governor's Office of Crime Control & Prevention ...

What Difference Does Participation in the Club/Projects Make in the Lives of Target Youth? 27
• Delayed onset of one gang behavior (less likelihood
of starting to wear gang colors*);
• Less contact with the juvenile justice system
(less likely to be sent away by the court+);
• Fewer delinquent behaviors (stealing less,+ and
less likelihood of starting to smoke pot+);
• Improved school outcomes (higher grades+ and
greater valuing of doing well in school+); and
• More positive social relationships and productive
use of out-of-school time (engaging in more
positive after-school activities+ and increased levels
of positive peer* and family relationships*).
More frequent attendance among GITTO youth is
associated with the following positive outcomes:
• Disengagement from gang-associated behaviors
and peers (less stealing with gang members,*
wearing gang colors,+ flashing gang signals,***
hanging at the same place as gang members,*
being a victim of a gang attack,+ and having
fewer negative peers+);
• Less contact with the juvenile just system (lower
incidences of being sent away by the court**);
and
• More positive school engagement (greater
expectations of graduating from high school or
receiving a GED*).
Although these findings are consistent with the
assumption that participation in the Club improved
attitudes and behavior, it is also consistent with the
hypothesis that the more motivated youth participated
more. Thus, we cannot rule out that some of
the estimated improvement could be due to unobservable
characteristics, such as motivation or parent
involvement in the youth’s life, rather than due to
their participation. Nevertheless, these findings are
consistent with the fact that prevention and intervention
strategies have the potential to work well with
the youth who are engaged.
Were Clubs More Effective with Some
Youth than Others?
One of the questions of concern to Clubs’ staff was
whether some groups of youth are being served
more effectively than others. Certainly, the above
results indicate that those youth who participate the
most are also receiving the most benefits. We also
examined whether the outcomes differed for boys
compared with girls or for youth of different ages.
Gender Differences
In both prevention and intervention programs, we
found that youth of both genders respond similarly
to GITTO and GPTTO. We do note, however, that
many fewer girls are being served.
Age Differences
Older youth are harder to reach with after-school
programs (Sipe and Ma, 1998). They are interested
in being with their peers, hanging out on the streets
and getting jobs. Nevertheless, GPTTO and GITTO
recruitment efforts drew in these youth. As we saw in
Chapter II, GPTTO and GITTO youth are more
likely to be teens than the average Boys & Girls Club
participant, particularly GITTO youth. Are there any
implications of the age of youth on the effect of
either GPTTO or GITTO? Overall, there are few differences
by age for either GPTTO or GITTO, but
several did emerge.
For GPTTO youth, we compared the effect of participation
on each of the outcomes for three different
age groups: 9 to 12, 13 to 15, 16 to 18. Two additional
positive findings and two negative findings
emerged for the older age groups. Greater levels of
participation for youth aged 16 to 18 are associated
with increased levels of adult support and an
increased sense of school efficacy (youth’s confidence
in his or her ability to do difficult school
work). We also found that the positive effect of participation
on school grades is stronger for 13- to 15-
year-olds than for the other age groups. On the
other hand, 16- to 18-year-old GPTTO youth who
attended more frequently also showed an increase
over the year in the number of negative peers with
whom they spent time, and GPTTO youth aged 13 to
15 who participated more frequently were also more
likely to be a victim of a gang attack. 15
Given the small number of younger youth in
GITTO, we compared two groups of youth—those
aged 10 to 13 and those 14 to 18—to look for any
differences by age in the effect of participation.
What emerged are some additional positive findings,
but only for youth in the younger age group. For
GITTO youth aged 10 to 13 only, more frequent
attendance was associated with: