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

Appendices 61
Appendix B
Survey Sample at Baseline and Follow-Up
In order to learn about the youth in GPTTO and GITTO,
Club staff administered a survey to new youth when they
first started coming to the Club. A total of 456 youth were
surveyed as they entered the Club/project.
The baseline survey consisted of questions about the background
characteristics of the youth, including gender, age,
ethnicity/race and socio-economic status (SES); school
information, such as grade in school, dropout status,
grades received, homework completion and academic efficacy;
neighborhood perception, including gang prevalence;
acting out and delinquent behavior, including
fighting, drug and alcohol use, street crimes, gang activity,
arrest rates and probation status; involvement in outside
activities and with supportive adults; peers and peer group;
and reasons for attending the Boys & Girls Club and prior
participation at the Club (see Appendix C for specific constructs
and reliabilities).
The baseline survey was also administered to a sample of
399 comparison youth who lived in the same communities
as the target youth. Comparison youth were recruited
separately for Clubs implementing intervention and prevention
strategies and were identified through public and
alternative schools, other youth-serving organizations,
police and probation.
Comparison Youth versus Target Youth
Although comparison youth were selected to match Target
youth on age, gender and ethnicity, they were less successfully
matched in terms of their risky behaviors. Analyses
comparing Target Youth with comparison youth revealed
significant differences at baseline on a number of behaviors,
summarized in Table B.1.
Follow-Up Interviews and Attrition Rates
Youth recruited through the targeted outreach programs
and those recruited as comparison youth went through a
follow-up interview one year after the baseline survey. The
follow-up survey included questions similar to those
included on the baseline survey plus questions about the
youth’s experiences at the Clubs or in the intervention
projects. Macro International, Inc. was subcontracted to
conduct the follow-up interview with the youth.
Four Clubs had completed questionnaires with fewer than
23 youth due to issues such as limited new recruitment in
their second year of implementation, challenges getting
permission slips returned, administering the surveys and
high rates of staff turnover. These Clubs were not included
in the follow-up sample.
Attrition
Across the remaining seven Clubs, there were 377 treatment
youth and 387 comparison youth surveyed at baseline: 302
of the 377 treatment youth (80%) participated in both the
baseline and follow-up surveys; 264 of the 387 comparison
youth (68%) completed both surveys. Given the attrition
from baseline to follow-up, we investigated the comparability
of the baseline sample and the follow-up sample. We conducted
statistical tests to explore whether there was a
difference between those who participated on the follow-up
survey and those who did not with respect to gender, race,
age and gang risk factor score at baseline. The differences
are reported below.
Prevention Youth
There were 292 prevention youth surveyed at baseline,
236 of whom also participated in the one-year follow-up
survey (81%). Among comparison prevention youth, 297
were surveyed at baseline, and 216 also responded at
follow-up (73%).
For the prevention youth, the only significant difference
between baseline-only versus two-wave completers was age.
The mean age for those who completed both surveys was
11.91, while those who completed only the baseline survey
were older on average, 13.18 years old (p