The prevalence of youth employment program in disadvantaged communities Saidah Leatutufu PA /12/2013

ABSTRACT Urban cities around the United States tend to experience high rates of juvenile delinquency. The question is how this growing issue can be mitigated. This study examines the presence of 11 youth employment programs (YEPs) in relation to the amount of juvenile delinquency in particular areas in San Francisco. Data from the San Francisco Police Department was collected on juvenile crime and a chi- square test was performed to determine if YEPs impact delinquency. Results show that delinquency is less likely to occur in areas where a YEP is present.

QUESTION/HYPOTHESIS Do the presence of youth employment programs reduce the likelihood of youth being involved in criminal activity (consequence by police)? H 0 : YEPs do not affect juvenile delinquency. H 1 : Juvenile delinquency is less likely to occur if YEP is present.

METHOD Data for this study are from San Francisco Data, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) Crime Incidents reported from August 2013 to October N=227 three variables: juvenile admonished, juvenile cited, and juvenile booked. An admonished juvenile but was dismissed with a warning. A juvenile that was cited is one that received a ticket resulting in a fine or court summons. A juvenile booked is a youth that was engaged in criminal activity that lead to their arrest. admonished=1, cited=2 and booked=3. Utilizing the coordinates and address intersections the zip code of where the incidents took place was determined. If a YEP is located in a particular zip code, then it is accessible to the youth that live in are go to school in that zip code. In order to determine if a YEP is located in certain zip codes, the zip codes of the 11 YEP were documented. 11 YEPs exist in 8 of the 27 zip codes throughout San Francisco. Some larger zip codes, such as contain 2 YEPs. The presence of a YEP (independent variable) is coded: No YEP=0, Yes YEP=1.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Types of Consequences N=227 Valid 227 Missing 0 Mean 2.44 Median 3.00 Mode 3 Std. Deviation.665 Variance.443 **admonished=1; cited=2; booked=3** a. mean-average youth are cited b. mode-in three month span, most youth were arrested MEASURES Three consequences were measured and compared with the presence of a YEP in a particular zip code. The type of consequence (TypeCons) reveals that a juvenile was involved in criminal activity and engagement in that activity is dependent on if a YEP is located in that zip code (YEPpres). The table shows that the mean type of consequence in the sample is 2.44.

Table 1: Types of Consequence in Relation to YEP Presence (crosstab) YEPpresence Total (N=227) No Youth Employment Program Yes Youth Employment Program Type of Consequence Juvenile Admonished Count % within TypeCons 45.5%54.5%100.0% % within YEPpresence 8.2%11.4%9.7% % of Total 4.4%5.3%9.7% Juvenile Cited Count % within TypeCons 76.8%23.2%100.0% % within YEPpresence 51.6%18.1%36.1% % of Total 27.8%8.4%36.1% Juvenile Booked Count % within TypeCons 39.8%60.2%100.0% % within YEPpresence 40.2%70.5%54.2% % of Total 21.6%32.6%54.2% Total Count % within TypeCons 53.7%46.3%100.0% % within YEPpresence 100.0% % of Total 53.7%46.3%100.0%

Chi-Square Utilizing SPSS software, a chi-square test was conducted. The chi-square test is used to determine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Independent variables (yes YEP and no YEP) dependent variables (TypeCons) Last, a chi-square test was conducted comparing types of consequence to the particular zip code where the crime happened. It determines which areas experience high levels of juvenile delinquency and do those areas contain YEPs.

RESULTS Table 2: Chi-Square Tests Valuedf Asymp. Sig. (2- sided) Pearson Chi-Square a b Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases227 a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is b. Pearson Chi-Square: no significance at α=0.05 or α=0.10; p=.000 reject null hypothesis 53.7% (122 out of 227) of juvenile delinquency occurs in areas that do not have YEPs. 76.8% of youth are punished in the form of a citation P<0.05 (.000) identifying a relationship between the independent and dependent variables and rejecting the null hypothesis. 60.2% of youth were booked around YEPs compared to 39.8% of youth booked in areas with no YEP.

94102, 94103, 94110, 94112, and experience the highest levels of juvenile delinquency. 3 of these 5 areas contain YEPs. The neighborhoods within these areas are the Tenderloin, Mission and Visitation Valley, some of the most densely populated and larger areas in San Francisco in comparison to other neighborhoods. These areas also experience crime rates.

Policy Implications Funding Policymakers need to invest in youth employment. Local agencies & private businesses Increases responsibility and prepares for the workforce

Suggestions for the Future Consider: age, income, race and family background. The YEPs offered in San Francisco are for youth ages 14 to 17, however, the youngest juvenile booked into juvenile hall is as young as 11. It is possible that more crime occurred in lower income areas; whether a YEP was in that area or not would not matter because crime may always be high in low-income areas. Race and family background is also essential from a consequence because some races are arrested at higher rates than others.