local ncace ppt revised
TRANSCRIPT
A project funded by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in partnership with the UNC School of Social
Work (SSW), UNC Injury Prevention Resource Center (IPRC), Robeson County Health Dept. (RCHD) and the
Center for Community Action (CCA).
About NCACE-YVP•Use a unique multidisciplinary approach to
violence prevention•Research youth violence prevention approaches
•Collect & analyze surveillance data•Foster relationships with local community
partners to help develop, implement & evaluate promising prevention efforts
This collaboration between research universities, local communities, and community-based organizations results in empowered
communities that are mobilized to address the problem of youth violence.
History of the ACE Program
•In 2000, in the wake of the Columbine tragedy, legislation is introduced that would form the NACE.
•From 2000-2005, 10 research universities received awards•In 2005, new funding was awarded to 8 universities
•In 2006, 2 additional universities were funded as Urban Partnership ACE & The National ACE Coordinating Center was
established•In 2010, UNC-CH through the UNC-IPRC & UNC-SSW was awarded
a five year grant to implement the nation’s first rural ACE•In 2011, implementation of the project in Robeson County begins
2000
2005
20062010
2011
2000 -2005 Columbia University Harvard University John Hopkins University University of Alabama at
Birmingham University of California,
Riverside University of California, San
Diego University of Hawaii University of Michigan University of Puerto Rico Virginia Commonwealth
University
2005 Columbia University Harvard University University of California, Berkeley University of California, Riverside University of Hawaii University of Chicago Virginia Commonwealth
University
2006 Children’s Hospital of
Philadelphia Meharry Medical College
*Urban Partnership ACE to serve high-risk urban area with youth
homicide rates twice the national average.
Funded Research Universities
ACE Logic Model
Ranks first in NC for juvenile arrests (Rate: 16,064 per 100,000)
One of the poorest counties in the nation (Rate: 34.7% vs. 13% U.S.)
Homicide rate more than 4 times the national average (Rate: 23.9 % vs. 5.2 % U.S.)
Has the largest non-reservation concentration of Native Americans of any county in the nation
A diverse rural community with a history of strong community programs and passionate people
Why Robeson County?
Figure 2: Target and Comparison Communities
Robeson County (target community)
Buncombe County
Cumberland County
Pitt County
Socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural counties with troubled school systems and high levels of youth violence
Figure 5: Robeson County Schools, NC Academic Performance
55%
61%64%
73% 75%
37%
45%
51% 51%
77% 79%
32%
81%
77%
80%83%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2005 2006 2007 2008
3rd GradersProficient in MathEOGs
3rd GradersProficient inReading EOGs
8th GradersProficient in MathEOGs
8th GradersProficient in MathEOGs
UNC-CH Injury Prevention Research Center (IPRC)
Jordan Institute for Families (JIF)UNC-CH School of Social Work
NC-rACE – Rural Academic Center for Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention
Academic Advisory Board
Administrative Core • Paul Smokowski, PhD., Director• Natasha Bowen, PhD.,Director• Cindy Porter, Administrative
Assistant• Accountant -TBN • IT Specialist - TBN • Rea Gibson, Graphics Designer• Michele Rogers (JIF), J’Ingrid
Mathis (IPRC)-Communications and Dissemination
Training Core• Kathleen Rounds, PhD. Core
Director• Doctoral Students, • Postdoctoral Fellow • Gary Nelson, DSW, Assoc.
Dir. For Community Training
Implementation & Evaluation Core • Mac Legerton, EdD., Director of
Community Relations• Martica Bacallao, PhD., Dir. of Program
Implementation• Jim Barbee, MPA, Center Coordinator
• Program Implementation Staff –see next chart
• Shenyang Guo, PhD., Director of Evaluation
• Dean Duncan, Assoc. Director of Evaluation • Data analysts - TBN
NC-rural Academic Center for Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention Local 2010-2011 Implementation Team
Paul Smokowski [UNC]Natasha Bowen [UNC]
Mac Legerton [CCA]Co-Directors
Jim Barbee[UNC]
Center Coordinator
Beth Jacobs[CCA]
Community Coordinator
Jennifer Clark[RCHD]
Social WorkCoordinator
Bobbie Donaldson[FSU]
Community OutreachIntern
Keith Bullard [DJJDP]
Juvenile JusticeCoordinator
Data Collection Specialist
----Stephen Covey
“Begin with the end in mind…”
Year 1: Community Engagement and Planning
• Community Violence Prevention Board
• Needs assessment• Individual data• School data• Community data
• Set & prioritize goals• Selection of
interventions
Years 2-4: Program Implementation
• Multi-faceted prevention initiative
• Universal & targeted components
• Target adolescents (grades 6-8)
• Focus on individual, relationship, and community risk factors
• Community change
Year 5: Sustainability and Final Evaluation
• Sustainability • Training local
clinicians• Comprehensive
evaluation:• County & School-
level youth violence outcomes
• Proximal individual and school-level risk and protective factors
Implementation & Evaluation Core: Five Year Overview
Specific aim: Reduce youth violence in Robeson County, NC by implementing and evaluating a multifaceted, evidence-based approach to prevent perpetration of youth
violence.
Ongoing: Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach / Monitoring & evaluation /
Training experiences for doctoral students and junior investigators
NCACE Community Violence Prevention Board
• Robeson County Health Dept.• Center for Community Action
• Public Schools of Robeson County• Juvenile Crime Prevention Council
• Duke Center for Child & Family Policy• Partnership for Children
• Southeastern Mental Health (SOC)• Communities In Schools
• NAACP local chapter• Lumbee Tribal Council
• UNC-Pembroke• Lumberton Police Dept./Sheriff• District Juvenile Court Services
• Southeastern Family Violence Ctr.• Chamber of Commerce
• Healing Lodge• Palmer Drug
Flexible community-based participatory approach to intervention selection, with non-negotiable aspects◦ Multi-faceted with universal and targeted components◦ Focus on individual, family, and community risk factors◦ Evidence of effectiveness with grades 6-8◦ Reasonable implementation resource requirements
Potential interventions
Intervention Approach
o Universal programs • Positive behavior • (Positive Action)• Dating relationships • (Safe Dates)• Bullying/peer relationships
(Success in Stages)• Academic engagement
(CareerStart; Cultivating Student Success)
o Targeted programs• Family relationships
(Parenting Wisely; Functional Family Therapy)
• Quasi-experimental
• Longitudinal HLM• Aggressive
behavior• Risk & protective
factors
• Training• Manualized programs• Technical support• Supervision• Process evaluation
•Quasi-experimental•Longitudinal HLM•School-level indicators
•violent acts•suspensions•academic performance
• Longitudinal trajectory• Quasi-experimental
RPD design• Juvenile arrests;
delinquent acts
County
SchoolIndividualFidelit
y
Evaluation Overview
County-Level• Does the youth violence prevention initiative
reduce county-level indicators of violence?• -Juvenile Arrests, Delinquent/Undisciplined rates
School-Level• Does initiative reduce school-level indicators?• Do county-level statistics help explain changes in
indicators?• -School violence, suspensions, EOG/EOC scores
Individual-Level• Is initiative associated w/ individual level
outcomes; changes in youth social experiences• What are the relationships among changes in
social enviromental risk & protective factors, academics, & conduct
Level Measure Source Data Collection
County • Juvenile arrests• Delinquent acts• Complaints against
juveniles
NC-OJJDP
Annually + 3-year baseline for all North Carolina counties
School • Acts of violence at school• Suspensions• Math & Language Arts
EOG/EOC
NC-DPI Annually + 3-year baseline for target and comparison schools
Individual • School Success Profile PLUS• Aggressive behaviors• Neighborhood, school,
peer, and family systems
• Physical & psychological health
Self-report
Annually from students in target and comparison county
Math & Language Arts EOG/EOC
NC-DPI Annually for students in target and comparison schools
Measures
Neighborhood
• Neighbor Support (7 items; =.82)
• Neighborhood Youth Behavior (8 items; =.84)
• Neighborhood Safety (8 items; =.84)
Peers
• Friend Behavior (9 items; =.90)
• Peer Group Acceptance (7 items; =.80)
• Friend Support (5 items; =.87)
• Bullying Perpetration and Victimization
• Social Problems (YSR: 16 items; =.70)
Family
• Parent Support (5 items; =.92)
• Home Academic Environment (3 items; = .76)
• Parent Education Support (6 items; =.87)
• Parent-Child Conflict (12 items; =.88)
School Success Profile PLUS
School
•School Safety (11 items; =.88)
•Learning Climate (7 items; =.81)
•School Satisfaction (4 items; =.86)
•Academic Rigor (10 items; =.91)
•Academic Relevancy (11 items; =.91)
•Teacher Support (8 items; =.89)
•Micro Interactions (13 items; =.90)
Personal Beliefs & Well-being
•Physical Health (5 items; =.75)
•Self-Confidence (5 items; =.91)
•Adjustment (6 items; =.87)
•Aggressive Behaviors (YSR: 16 items; =.81)
•Internalizing Problems (YSR: 16 items; =.85)
•Ethnic Identity (6 items; =.80)
•Religious Orientation (4 items; =.91)
Attitudes & Behavior
•School Engagement (4 items; =.78)
•Extracurricular Participation
•Success Orientation (12 items; =.92)
School Success Profile PLUS (cont’d)
Initial staff training and periodic refresher sessions Weekly session notes and implementation tracking
◦ Attendance, hours, content delivered Weekly clinical supervision sessions Selection of programs with strong resources for dissemination,
implementation, and fidelity measurement Specialized measures of implementation and fidelity specific to
selected intervention programs Ongoing process evaluation
◦ Quantitative and qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators
◦ Understand any implementation and fidelity issues and identify salient themes for content and process improvement
◦ Iterative cycle of integrating feedback into ongoing program planning
Implementation & Fidelity
Specific Aim: Enable the development of scholars and scholarly practitioners through cross-disciplinary training of new and established investigators in youth violence prevention
Training Core
Mentoring
Collaboration
Training
Awareness
Create training opportunities ◦ Exposure to local and visiting scholars ◦ Series of seminars on topics related to youth violence
prevention Risk and protective factors Surveillance of youth violence Prevention strategies Research methods
Create mentoring opportunities◦ Master’s students, doctoral students, and junior youth
violence prevention researchers receive supervision and guidance from senior researchers and advisory board
Training Core Activities
Establish new collaborations◦Multi-disciplinary team of researchers and
practitioners collaborate on Advisory Committee and Community Violence Prevention Board
◦Representatives from social work, public health, education, sociology, and psychology
◦Framework for connections between community practitioners and practitioners and researchers
Raise awareness in the professional and lay communities◦Training and continuing education to social
service providers, educators, public health practitioners, and clinicians
Training Core Activities (cont’d)
For further information regarding the project
contact Jim Barbee
NC rACE Center Director [email protected]