1. Can they have a conversation? Evaluation of a Social Skills Curriculum in a Youth Development Program

2. Research Objective  To evaluate the effectiveness of a brief social skills curriculum taught to youth participating in the Youth Impact program.

3. Research Questions Does participation in the social skills curriculum affect the social skills of the youth?  Did the children’s conversation skills improve after attending the social skills classes?  Did the youth who attended the social skills classes score significantly higher in their conversation skills as opposed to those youth who did not attend?

4. What is Youth Impact? An after school program for inner city at risk youth Youth’s age range between 9 and 18 years and grades 4 th to 12 th Youth Impact is located on the corner of 23 rd Street and Grant Avenue in Ogden, UT Approximately 95% of Youth Impact participants reside within a 12-block radius of Ogden’s inner-city limits The vast majority are living in an “at-risk” environment: single-parent household, low income, exposed to drugs, gangs and violence and the mentality that goes with it.

5. General Principles of Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory People learn by observing the behavior of others Learning occurs without a change in behavior Cognition plays a role in learning Social Learning theory can be considered a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories

6. How the Environment Reinforces Modeling The participant is reinforced by the model. The participant is reinforced by a third person. The imitated behavior leads to reinforcing consequences. The model’s behavior affects the participant’s behavior vicariously.

7. Skillstreaming Process In Class:  Define the Skill  Model the skill  Show examples/experiences  Set up the role-play  Conduct the role-play  Provide feedback  Assign skill homework Real World:  Apply skill at home, school, Youth Impact with peers and surrounding adults  Complete homework and continue to apply skill each week  Return to class and share experience

8. Three Skills Taught Beginning a conversation Having a conversation Ending a conversation

9. Social Skills Classes Taught once a week for five consecutive weeks. Each class consisted of approximately 4 youth. Classes were age specific and an age appropriate curriculum was taught in each class. Average class length was 30 to 45 minutes.

10. Methods – Subjects in Sample Two groups of YI participants  Experimental group – youth who participated in the social skills classes (n = 31)  Control group – youth who did not participate in the social skills classes (n = 43) Selection of Experimental Group  Relied on youth who were the first to return consent forms and attended class. Selection of Control Group  Chosen by default. Youth who returned consent forms but did not attend the classes.

11. Demographics- Youth Experimental (n=31) Average age: 12.43 Age Range: 9 to 16 Gender: 50% male 50% female Race: 26.5% Caucasian 52.9% Hispanic 20.5% other Control Group (n=43) Average age: 11.6 Age Range: 9 to 17 Gender: 40% male 60% female Race: 30.0% Caucasian 40.0% Hispanic 30.0% other

12. Demographics- Parents Experimental (n=31) Average age: 36.7 Gender: 91.7% female Race: 27.8% Caucasian 55.6% Hispanic 16.7% Other Control Group (n=43) Average age: 35.7 Gender: 100% female Race: 30.0% Caucasian 50.0% Hispanic 20.0% Other

13. Demographics- Parents cont. Experimental (n=31) Education Level: 22.2% less than H.S. 27.8% HS Diploma/GED 27.8% Some college 13.9% Associates 5.6% Bachelors Employment Status: 69.4% full-time 5.6% part-time 16.7% unemployed Household Income: 33.3% less than $20,000 Control Group (n=43) Education Level: 22.2% less than H.S. 22.2% H.S. Diploma/GED 44.4% some college 0% Associates 0% Bachelors Employment Status: 50.0% full-time 40.0% part-time 10.0% unemployed Household Income: 60.0% less than $20,000

14. Demographics- Parents cont. Experimental (n=31) Marital Status: single 22.2% married 41.7% separated 5.6% divorced 25.0% cohabiting 5.6% Relationship to Child: biological/adopted 77.8% legal guardian 22.2% Control Group (n=43) Marital Status: single 10.0% married 30.0% separated 20.0% divorced 40.0% cohabiting 0% Relationship to Child: biological/adopted 80.0% legal guardian 20.0%

15. Data Collection Methods  Longitudinal Study  Using two points in time  Pre-test and Post-test technique  Homework observation checklist

16. Measurement of Conversation Skills: Survey Questions  Does the youngster talk to others about light topics and then lead into more serious topics?  Does the youngster talk to others about things of interest to both of us?

17. Did the child greet the person? Did the child listen actively? Did the child express themselves in an appropriate manner? Did the child interrupt the other person? Did the child end the conversation in a friendly manner? Measurement of Conversation Skills: Homework Observation Checklist

18. Results: Scores from Homework Checklist Social SkillsMinimum Score Demonstrating Understanding Average Understanding Score Percent of Youth Achieving Average Score or Higher Conversation Skills7 (n=12)9 (n=12)92.6%

19. Measured by: Likert Scale on a scale of 1-5  1 being almost never  2 being seldom  3 being sometimes  4 being often  5 being almost always

20. Results: Social Skills Overall before Classes Social SkillsStaff Mean Score Beginning a Conversation4.83 (n=35) Having a Conversation4.51 (n=35)

21. Results: Mean Social Skills Scores for Experimental Group of Youth (Staff Ratings) Staff Rating (n=35) Before Classes After Classes Mean Difference Beginning a Conversation 4.173.67-.50 Having a Conversation4.203.60-.60

22. Summary of Changes in Scores for the Youth in the Experimental Group As reported by the staff, the social skills of the youth were significantly better after attending the classes in each of the five skill areas. As reported by the parents, after attending the classes the youth significantly improved upon three of the five social skills. As reported by the youth, after attending the classes there were improvements in four of the five social skills, however these improvements failed to achieve statistical significance.

23. Results: Beginning a Conversation: Scores of Experimental and Control Groups Staff Rating (n=35) Experimental Group Mean Control Group Mean Mean Difference Before Taking Classes- Time 1 4.764.93.17 After Taking Classes- Time 2 4.86 0

24. Results: Beginning a Conversation – Staff Rating *

25. Summary of Beginning a Conversation Results Although both the youth and parents rated listening skills as increasing after the classes, there was no significant difference between the youth who attend classes and those who did not. Staff rated those youth who were participating in the classes as doing significantly better with listening than those who didn’t attend the class.

26. Results: Having a Conversation: Scores of Experimental and Control Groups Staff Rating (n=35) Experimental Group Mean Control Group Mean Mean Difference Before Taking Classes- Time 1 4.624.36.26 After Taking Classes- Time 2 4.574.43.14

27. Results: Having a Conversation – Staff Rating **

28. Summary of Having a Conversation Results The parents and staff observed an increase in saying thank you for the youth who attended classes. Overall, there was a significant difference between the youth who participated and those who did not.

29. Conclusions There was a significant change in the social skills of the youth who participated in the classes. After the classes, the social skills of the youth who participated were higher than those of the youth who did not participate. Overall, the skillstreaming curriculum was effective.