FAMILY AND COMMUNITY VIOLENCE
PREVENTION (FCVP) PROGRAM
2003-04 Semi-Annual Report
For
FLC: Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
Prepared By: Chris Kowalski/Dr. Philip Rhoades
Date: January 15, 2004
Return to: The Principal Investigator
FCVP Program
Central State University
P.O. Box 1004
Wilberforce, OH 45384
DUE DATE:
January 16, 2004
SECTION I
Project Description
Session I Program Activity
SECTION I: Program Profile Sheet
Academic ____2003-04___
Session I Program Year
Program Name Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
Program Design (standard or modified) Modifed
Primary Programming Time Frame After-School
(In-School, After-school, Weekends)
Number of Sites 1 (One)
Number of Dosage Hours Offered 192
(All Components)
Programmatic Emphasis or Theme
To positively impact the incidence of violence and abusive behavior, academic
failure, and early onset of problem behaviors within a low income, at-risk
community through the mobilization of community partners and enriched
activities.
Primary Risk Factors Identified in 2003-06 Competitive Application
Academic failure, early onset of problem behaviors, economic deprivation, family conflict and violence, lack of commitment to school, school dropout and substance abuse.
Number of Key Staff (Director, Prevention Specialist, Evaluator) 3 (Three)
Number of Total Personnel 25 (Twenty-five)
(interns, students, mentors, consultants, et al.)
Section I, Form A.1
FCVP Overall Demographic Profile
For All Pretested Cohorts
(Session I Only)
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Academic 2003-2004
Name of FLC Session Program Year
AGEUnder 12 / 12 – 15 / 16 – 18 / Over 18 / Total
Number of Youth Participants / 16 / 42 / 58
Number of Comparison Participants / 10 / 49 / 59
GENDER
Male / Female / Total
Number of Youth Participants / 24 / 34 / 58
Number of Comparison Participants / 32 / 27 / 59
ETHNICITY
African-
American / Caucasian / Latino/
Hispanic / Asian-American / Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander / Native American / Mixed (Multi Racial) / Other / Total
Number of Youth Participants / 4 / 10 / 42 / 2 / 58
Number of Comparison Participants / 2 / 55 / 1 / 1 / 59
Section I, Form A.2
Number of Overall Pretested Youth Participants in Entire Program
By Schedules
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Academic _____ 2003-04___
Name of FLC Session Program Year
Haas Middle School
Name of Site
Number of Youth ParticipantsSchedule / TOTAL
In- School / 0
Evening/After-School / 58
Saturday/Weekend / 0
SECTION II
MAJOR COMPONENTS
A. Academic Development
B. Personal Development
C. Cultural Development
D. Career Development
E. Recreational Enrichment
F. Family Bonding
G. Distal Measures
In this section, detail the objectives, activities, pretest results and any adjustments which will be made for the remainder of the program year, based upon pretest data. Please provide as much detail as possible that will accurately assess the program during Session I.
SECTION II A: Academic Development
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Academic 2003 - 2004
______
Name of FLC Session Year
1. Discuss the progress of your academic development component as it relates to the FLC pretest data. Highlight the success and non-success of your efforts. Use the following prompt questions to provide a thorough detail of program pretest data, activities and program adjustments planned for the remainder of the year. Feel free to use additional questions provided in the back of the report. Though all questions may not relate specifically to each program activity, please try to answer those that have relevance in order to provide a more complete picture of the breath and scope of programming. You are not limited to only the space provided beneath each question. Note that this is designed to capture qualitative data that would otherwise go unreported. Feel free to include participant/parent quotes, pictures, programs or other related materials, which would add to an overall understanding of program dynamics.
· How much planning and preparation went into the event(s)?
The Academic Component is considered as prevention activities under the TAMUCC Family Life Center organizational plan. Planning meetings were held to determine component deliverables, communicate project goals and objectives, determine activities, develop a schedule, initiate training, and investigate opportunities. In addition, the sequencing of activities in the most effective and efficient manner was discussed. A continuum of program services in this area was developed and the curriculum was planned with basic academic skills and an understanding of delivering the curriculum “outside” of the traditional classroom environment. A needs assessment among the target population (participants) was accomplished by reviewing previous program and school data both quantitatively and qualitatively and by reviewing the Haas Middle School/State of Texas academic goals and objectives.
The academic component utilizes the following guidelines for delivery of the curriculum:
Ø Activities that compliment and support recognized academic standards, relevant to the needs and concerns of program participants and parents, and delivered by methods on how students learn best.
Ø Activities that are designed to prepare program participants to achieve higher standards and become life-long learners.
Ø Provide a safe and healthy environment conducive for developing academic performance.
Ø Utilize mentoring relationships to create a climate for academic development and a shared educational purpose.
Ø Involve parents and collaborative partners to support student learning.
· What difficulties did you encounter in the conceiving phase?
Accomplishment of academic goals and activities in relation to the extended academic day experienced by participants. Keeping participants motivated toward academic activities.
· Were there circumstances involved which were out of control of the FLC that negatively affected implementation?
Scheduling of school resources
· Did this event lend itself to variation across age, gender, ethnicity or other domains? If so, explain.
Implementing appropriate academic activities that reflect individual skill level and competencies have been challenged by participant age, gender, maturity and grade level. Limited resources for intensive individual attention. Some programming changes have been modified for allowing intensive individual teaching in some circumstances. Other resources are being developed for allowing more individual attention.
· What lingering effects have been noted throughout the reporting period as a result of this event? Both positive and negative.
Lingering effects of the academic component is a positive sense include increased confidence in academic abilities, increase of school grades, participant willingness to seek assistance. Negative affects include concern over the extended day causing the participants to “burn out”.
· How was program attendance in this event? As a result, was there marked change in attendance patterns?
The incentive program implemented by the FLC has supported program attendance standards. In addition, mentors encourage and monitor attendance for their assigned participant group members.
· Can you foresee any short and long term effects of this event?
Short and long term effects include increased academic success and increased motivation for learning.
Section II A
Table 1.
2003-04 Academic Development Objectives and Corresponding Activities undertaken during Fall 2003
Objectives / Corresponding Program Activities Undertaken to Meet ObjectivesObjective 1.l: The proportion of participating youth that pass the reading, math, and writing parts of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test will increase by 5% by June 2004.
Objective 1.2: The annual grade point average of participating youth, as a group, will increase by .05 points by June 2004.
Objective 1.3: The mean standard scores of participating youth on the WRAT3 Spelling, Math, and Reading tests for the Academic Year post-test will be significantly improved compared to their scores on the Academic Year pre-test at the .05 level of statistical significance by June 2004.
Objective 1.4: The grade point average, TAKS Test pass rate, and WRAT3 sub-test mean standard scores for participants will be higher than those for the control group youth at the .05 level of statistical significance by June 2004.
Objective 1.5: At least 60% of the responding participants will indicate that they agree or strongly agree that the FLC program improved their academic performance on the post-test YOU Survey questions by June 2004.
Objective 1.6: At least 60% of the parents/guardians interviewed over the course of the program year will indicate that they believe the FLC program has assisted their child(ren) in improving academic performance by June 2004. / 1. Mentor/Peer tutoring-Homework, skill enhancement
2. Teacher recommendations
3. TAKS and testing strategies
4. Cooking Classes (measuring)
5. Texas Parks and Wildlife Curriculum
6. Texas Agriculture Extension Agency
7. Electronic and board games
8. Computer tutorial programs
9. Pearl Harbor Guest Speaker/Video
10. NASA Means Business Activities
11. NASA Astronaut Visit
12. NASA Imax Video
Section II A
Table 2.
Highlights of Quantitative Pretest Results
(Session 1)
Instruments Used / HighlightsWRAT-3 / Under 12
No differences were found internally among either the participant or comparison groups nor between these two groups.
12 & over
Participant females had significantly higher mean standard scores on all parts of the WRAT-3 than males.
The participant Math and Reading mean standard scores were significantly higher than those for comparisons.
While not statistically significant, participant Reading and comparison Spelling Standard Score means are higher for youth with married parents. The higher comparison youth Math Standard Score mean for those with married parents is significantly different than those without two parents.
Other
Qualitative interviews indicate that the Academic Development goals of the FLC are being met. / Under 12
12 & over
SECTION II A
Table 3A: Academic Achievement of Participating Youth based on WRAT3 tests.
Participants
Score Type / N / Mean / SD / Min. / Max.Under Age 12
/ 16Reading Raw / 37.13 / 5.584 / 30 / 47
Reading Standard / 99.44 / 14.334 / 80 / 126
Reading Percentile / 48.38 / 30.181 / 9 / 96
Reading Grade / 6.19 / 2.738 / 3 / 10
Spelling Raw / 29.75 / 5.73 / 22 / 40
Spelling Standard / 96.31 / 14.970 / 78 / 124
Spelling Percentile / 41.56 / 31.217 / 7 / 95
Spelling Grade / 5.19 / 2.536 / 2 / 10
Math Raw / 31.69 / 3.459 / 23 / 36
Math Standard / 93.75 / 11.305 / 66 / 108
Math Percentile / 37.56 / 21.830 / 1 / 70
Math Grade / 4.75 / 1.183 / 2 / 6
Age 12 and older
/ 42Reading Raw / 41.74 / 5.38 / 28 / 49
Reading Standard / 105.36 / 13.40 / 67 / 127
Reading Percentile / 62.55 / 27.02 / 1 / 96
Reading Grade / 8.53 / 2.68 / 2 / 13
Spelling Raw / 37.71 / 6.14 / 20 / 45
Spelling Standard / 100.90 / 14.14 / 62 / 124
Spelling Percentile / 53.00 / 28.61 / 1 / 95
Spelling Grade / 6.98 / 2.64 / 1 / 13
Math Raw / 35.00 / 4.16 / 26 / 44
Math Standard / 93.93 / 11.34 / 72 / 115
Math Percentile / 37.36 / 23.69 / 3 / 84
Math Grade / 6.31 / 2.09 / 3 / 10
Table 3B: Academic Achievement of Participating Youth based on WRAT3 tests.
Comparison Youth
Score Type / N / Mean / SD / Min. / Max.Under Age 12
/ 10Reading Raw / 36.80 / 5.203 / 30 / 46
Reading Standard / 97.90 / 13.643 / 80 / 124
Reading Percentile / 45.20 / 28.370 / 9 / 95
Reading Grade / 6.00 / 2.404 / 3 / 10
Spelling Raw / 32.40 / 4.835 / 26 / 41
Spelling Standard / 102.50 / 12.590 / 85 / 123
Spelling Percentile / 55.00 / 27.841 / 16 / 94
Spelling Grade / 6.00 / 1.944 / 4 / 10
Math Raw / 31.80 / 3.994 / 26 / 38
Math Standard / 93.20 / 11.507 / 78 / 144
Math Percentile / 35.50 / 24.573 / 7 / 83
Math Grade / 4.80 / 1.317 / 3 / 7
Age 12 and older
/ 49Reading Raw / 39.76 / 5.21 / 30 / 49
Reading Standard / 99.12 / 11.99 / 47 / 127
Reading Percentile / 50.78 / 27.21 / 4 / 96
Reading Grade / 7.31 / 2.36 / 3 / 10
Spelling Raw / 33.47 / 4.40 / 23 / 43
Spelling Standard / 98.08 / 10.37 / 75 / 118
Spelling Percentile / 46.12 / 22.96 / 5 / 88
Spelling Grade / 6.37 / 1.78 / 3 / 10
Math Raw / 32.65 / 4.83 / 22 / 40
Math Standard / 87.96 / 11.88 / 61 / 111
Math Percentile / 26.59 / 21.15 / 1 / 77
Math Grade / 5.43 / 2.27 / 2 / 10
Section II A
2. Discussion of Pre-Test Data for the 2003-04Academic Year
Provide a brief discussion on the results of the pretest obtained from the administration of the instruments. Indicate the mean score and standard deviation if appropriate and mention any characteristics or trends you observed. Also provide a brief discussion, on the GPA or any other relevant data. State how the FLC used the pretest analysis as a guide for implementing its prevention strategies to meet program objectives. The following prompt questions should be addressed:
Discussion Section for 2003-04 Quantitative and Qualitative Pretest Data Results:
a) Quantitative
Through out this report two age groups will be noted. One is comprised of those youth 11 years of age. No younger children exist in either the participant or comparison group. The other age group are those 12 and older.
For the participants 11 years old, no statistically significant differences were found in WRAT-3 standard score means by gender, ethnicity, parental marital status, or suspension in the past year. The same was true for the comparison youth 11 years old.
For the participants 12 and older, no statistically significant differences were found in the WRAT-3 standard score means by ethnicity, parental marital status, or suspension in the past year. Females had statistically significant higher scores than males as indicated on the table below.
Participant WRAT-3 Standard Score Differences by GenderMean Males / Mean Females / F / p
Spelling / 94.13 / 105.08 / 6.438 / .015
Math / 87.38 / 97.96 / 10.657 / .007
Reading / 99.75 / 108.81 / 4.926 / .032
While not statistically significant, participant Reading Standard Score mean was higher with youth with married parents when compared to a combined category of all other marital statuses.