Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLee Watkins Modified over 8 years ago
1
EVALUATION OF A COMMUNITY- BASED DATING RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM FOR TEENAGERS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AEA ORLANDO—11.12.2009 GRANT FUNDED BY HHS CBAE AWARD #90AE0226 K. Duppong Hurley, L. Buddenberg, K. McGee, & M. Dinger
2
Teen Risks According to the 2007 CDC’s YBRS 48% of teens reported having sexual intercourse 15% reported having 4 or more sexual partners 35% reported being sexually active in past 3 months 38% reported not using a condom last time had intercourse 23% using alcohol or drugs before last time had intercourse Approx 14% of people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS were between 13-24 years old (2006 CDC Surveillance Reports) Nearly half of the 19million new STD infections each year are youth between 15-24 years old (Weinstock, Berman & Cates, 2004)
3
Youth in Out-of-Home Care Special risks and concerns for youth in out of home care High rates of emotional and behavioral needs Many with histories of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse and neglect Many have issues setting physical and emotional boundaries for self and others
4
Intervention Approach Combination of WAIT Training and Sexual Con Games Interventions Peer refusal skills Emotional and physical boundaries Learning about self and others Handling conflict effectively Consequences of teen sex Cultural influences Recognizing and avoiding sexual manipulation and coercion
5
Intervention Format House Parents deliver information in small group discussions with same gender youth HP trained by reviewing program guide and watching 5 minute web video clips Conduct 3-4 45 minutes sessions a month Mix of discussion with activities for youth
6
Evaluation Goals Determine if program acceptable and feasible for direct care staff to implement Examine if program acceptable to youth (buy-in, interest in content) See if content is delivered to youth by staff Examine if youth retain content of program, any shifts in attitudes and behaviors Collect preliminary information to help with program development/refinement Prepare for future comparison study
7
Process Evaluation Plan A multiple baseline design to allow for ongoing program improvements Create 8 small groups of homes Collect brief surveys from youth and staff at pre-test and every 3 months to monitor change over time Train two groups of homes (1 boy, 1 girl) every 3-4 months Conduct interviews and focus groups with staff and youth to determine acceptability and satisfaction with program Evaluation plan nixed as too few youth served
8
Revised Process Evaluation Plan Conduct two waves of staff interviews (3 months after training, end of first year) Online survey following end of first year Examine lesson logs to look at participation/satisfaction with individual lessons Youth surveys in August, January, and April to newer youth in program Half of homes trained in September, other half in Feb. Anonymous surveys (cannot track responses) Eval budget cut in half, program likely losing funding
9
Preliminary Results
10
Staff Interviews Two waves (6 in winter, 11 in summer) Believed the program was important and useful Youth looked forward to program Liked the sessions that were more activity-based Used the manual primarily and on-line for presentation ideas Had difficulty scheduling program with busy kids Some difficulty knowing how to handle youth that miss meetings Worked well with boys and girls, variety of ages
11
Staff Online Survey Results
12
Percent of family Teachers who agree with the statement (n=31)
13
Youth Survey: Demographics Sample size August 111 youth January 100 youth April 89 youth Treatment condition 56% treatment 44% waitlist Gender 64% boys 36% girls Percent Hispanic21% White Caucasian 60% African American 28% American Indian/Alaskan 12% Other5% Percent 8 th or younger 8.1% 9 th grade18.9% 10 th grade30.6% 11 th grade27.9% 12 th grade14.4% Race/Ethnicity Grade in School
14
Program Content Covered August Treatment n=56 August Waitlist n=49 January Treatment n=53 January Waitlist n=45 April Treatment n=48 April Waitlist n=39 Ways to refuse peer pressure 26%27%19%20%13%21% Setting boundaries 32%27%10%23%12%21% STD’s 59%58%35%52%25%41% Consequences of sexual activity 40%44%25%33%17%15% Advantages of waiting until marriage 63%57%21%46%23%21% Different types of intimacy 48%58%27%46%13%31% Percentage of youth that reported “never” discussing topic with Family Teacher in past month
15
Dating, Sex, and Marriage Over time more agreement that abstinence only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s Treatment group shows more support at post that teens are not ready to have sex Many items showed no significant change over time, but did seem to be an effect by gender Girls more likely to agree with items supporting abstinence and that teens should not have sex Boys more likely to endorse idea that it is OK for teens dating for a long time to have sex, that condoms are as effective as abstinence, and that it is difficult for teen parents to attain their financial dreams. Need to examine gender patterns more in-depth. (Boys make up majority of respondents in this study.)
16
Attitudes Toward Abstinence Until end of high school 43-48% indicate support across time 68-70% of girls and 27-36% of boys Until marriage 21-24% indicate support across time 34-40% of girls and 12-17% of boys Need to examine with larger sample, so can examine more by sub-groups (gender, age)
17
Implications Staff in a group-home setting expressed buy-in to teaching youth content related to dating and sexual activity Delivery method of on-line training and manuals at least modestly effective for staff to feel prepared Possibility of replicating in foster care homes Or with community groups (church, afterschool…) An in-home version for parents to use with their kids? Need outcome data to determine effectiveness of program in changing youth behaviors (comparison group; pre-post-follow-up design)
18
Next Steps Youth & staff focus groups See what like and dislike about program Content they would like to see in program Prepare for program sustainability Refined lesson logs Gather youth survey data in Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 (pre-post) Larger n Individual generated tracking number Examine differences by youth characteristics (age, gender…) Compare to national rates Prepare for rigorous outcome study
19
Contact Information Laura.Buddenberg@boystown.org Laura.Buddenberg@boystown.org Kdupponghurley2@unl.edu Kdupponghurley2@unl.edu
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.