Annual Report

Youth Engagement: An Evaluation of the Philadelphia’s Foundation Fund for Children

Prepared for:

The Philadelphia Foundation

March 2012

Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................1

Methodology .....................................................................................................................4

Philadelphia’s Children and Youth: A Snapshot ....................................................11

Current and Emerging Issues ......................................................................................14

Impact of FFC Funding .................................................................................................29

Levels of Youth Engagement .......................................................................................38

Perceptions of FFC .........................................................................................................42

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................47

Recommendations..........................................................................................................49

Appendices Appendix I: Key Informants ..................................................................................51 Appendix II: Protocols Used ..................................................................................53 Appendix III: Bibliography ....................................................................................72

Youth Engagement

Introduction The Philadelphia Foundation The Philadelphia Foundation was established in 1918 as a community foundation serving Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties. The Foundation develops, manages, and allocates community resources in partnership with donors and grantees to build on community assets, to respond to the needs of the entire community, and to promote empowerment, leadership, and civic participation among underserved groups. The Foundation practices and encourages diversity, equity, and inclusiveness as fundamental values of community life.

The Foundation makes grants from more than 800 charitable funds established by individuals, families, and institutions to support humanitarian, cultural, and educational programs. The Foundation awards $20 million of grants annually.

The Fund for Children In April 2001, the Foundation’s Board of Managers established the Fund for Children (FFC) to accept contributions from the Philadelphia Eagles football team and the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team. These contributions are authorized by city ordinance in conjunction with the development of a new stadium and new ballpark for the teams. Each team must pay $1 million into the Fund for Children every year for 30 years. The total contributions from both teams will be at least $60 million.

The Fund uses this money to improve the quality of life for the children of Philadelphia, especially for children who live in high-poverty neighborhoods. The money is used for childcare, pre-school and after-school programs, summer youth activities, sports, art and music programs, parenting skills training, and other programs that support healthy children and positive youth development.

This money is not intended to take the place of government funding. Instead it may be used to supplement government funding and expand programs beyond current funding levels and mandate.

The Philadelphia Foundation is the trustee for the Fund for Children. This means that the Foundation is responsible for fund management, including accounting and investment of funds. The Foundation is also responsible for making sure that the money is used in ways that further the Fund for Children goal.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

1

Youth Engagement

Preparation of the report This report has been prepared by the staff and consultants of Rainbow Research Inc., a Minneapolis-based, nonprofit research organization that focuses on issues of equity and social justice.

Rainbow Research, Inc was engaged by The Philadelphia Foundation in November, 2011 to evaluate the impact of its Fund For Children’s grant making strategy and make recommendations on how it might further enhance the quality of life for the City’s children. Rainbow was charged to: 

Determine current and emerging needs of Philadelphia youth aged 12-18 by engaging policy makers, business leaders, funders, youth and FFC funded agency directors,



Evaluate the extent to which funded organizations engaged youth in their programming,



Evaluate the impact of the current grant-making strategy on FFC funded organizations and youth,



Map the distribution of Philadelphia’s Out-of-School Time (OST) programs for youth aged 12-18 to contextualize the FFC’s funding strategy and identify unmet needs.

Methodology and Sources of Data Rainbow Research conducted its research employing the following methodologies and sources of data: 1. Collection and analysis of available data on the current circumstances and wellbeing of Philadelphia’s youth, including data on their demographics, health, education and socio-economic status.

2. Face to face interviews conducted with policymakers, advocates, funders, business leaders, researchers, educators, administrators, and executives of agencies receiving FFC grants. (N=55) 3. Youth-led focus groups (15) consisting of 123 Philadelphia area youth ages 12-18.

Eight of the groups were conducted with youth affiliated with FFC programs and seven were conducted with unaffiliated youth.

4. Compilation of reliable OST data bases and directories (16) prepared by respected OST funders and providers into a comprehensive, standardized data base with geo coded information suitable for conducting analyses, making queries and mapping Rainbow Research, Inc.

2

Youth Engagement

Audience for the report The Philadelphia Foundation, its Board of Managers, and its Fund for Children Advisory Board are the primary audiences for this report. Other audiences may include the Philadelphia City Council that passed the city ordinance creating the Fund, the Fund donors, service providers, and consumers, that is, the children of Philadelphia and their families.

Utilization of the findings Findings from the report will assist the Foundation’s Board of Managers and the Advisory Board of the Fund for Children in creating grant-making strategies to achieve the Fund's stated goal.

Next steps The Philadelphia Foundation will receive this report and inform Rainbow Research of what role, if any, it will be invited take in the dissemination and implementation of the report’s findings and recommendations.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

3

Youth Engagement

Methodology 1. Collection and Analysis of Available Data Between November 2011 and February 2012, Rainbow Research gathered and analyzed research data and information from available sources on quality-of-life issues affecting Philadelphia’s children. Primary sources of data and information included published reports and studies.

2. Interviews with Key Informants and Agency Executives Rainbow Research spent two weeks in the city of Philadelphia interviewing 24 key informants from the business, education, nonprofit, city government, and state government sectors.

These interviews were conducted to collect primary data from people engaged in planning, studying, evaluating, and providing direct services to Philadelphia’s children and youth. Respondents were purposefully selected because of their knowledge about and experience with youth issues in the city of Philadelphia from a variety of perspectives (see Appendix I for the list of respondents). Foundation staff, Rainbow Researchers, and consultants from St. Joseph’s University collectively decided upon the final list of respondents.

During the site visits, a four-member research team conducted interviews on current and emerging youth issues. Interviews, ranging from 45 to 90 minutes in length, were conducted in the field at community centers, offices, and schools where informants worked. They were told at the outset that their participation was voluntary that they could break off the interview at any time and opt out of questions they didn’t care to answer. To promote candor, they were also assured that their responses were confidential.

While not selected at random key informants, were a diverse group. Sixty-two (62%) were female and 42% were people of color. They also represented an array of perspectives from across a range of major institutions. Issues they identified in independent interviews were cross-validated by those identified in the examination of available data and information. They also cross-validated issues raised by one another.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

4

Youth Engagement

Table 1: Key Informants by Institutional Sector Institutional Sector Business Education K-12 Education – Higher Ed Philanthropy Government City/State Government City Nonprofit Total

# of Informants 3 1 3 3 2 4 8 24

In addition, telephone interviews were conducted with thirty-one (31) executive directors of agencies with out of school time programs (OST) funded at least once by FFC between 2009-2012. Interviews, ranging from 45 to 60 minutes, focused on such issues as impact of FFC funding, organizational definitions of engagement, and current and emerging issues facing Philadelphia youth ages 12-18.

Youth Focus Groups Fifteen (15) youth focus groups, of 60-90 minutes were conducted in the field at community centers, offices, and schools with Philadelphia youth ages 1218. During the focus groups, youth discussed current and emerging issues, how they benefited from the FFCfunded programs in which they were participants, and the extent to which they felt empowered and engaged by this programming.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

5

Youth Engagement

There were two sets of focus groups conducted at the agencies listed in Table 2 below.

Set 1: Seven groups (7) were ad hoc conducted with youth not currently participating in an FFC-funded program. Discussions in this set focused on current and emerging needs and issues facing Philadelphia’s youth.

Set 2: Eight groups (8) were conducted with youth currently participating in funded FCC programs (2011-12). In this set discussions focused on how these youth benefited from their participating in FFC funded programs and how if at all they felt empowered or engaged by their participation.

Table 2: Youth Focus Groups Sites Focus Group Set 1 Discussion of Issues

Focus Group Set 2 Discussion of Program Benefits

Achieving Independence Center

Asian Americans United

BVM Middle School

Attic Youth Center

De La Salle Vocational School

Boys and Girls Club of Philadelphia

Nueva Esperanza High School

City Year

SEAMAAC (Southeast Asian Mutual Assistant Associations Coalition, Inc.)

Episcopal Community Services

Southwark After School Program

Philadelphia Student Union

YES Philly

YOUTHadelphia Youth United for Change

Youth in Set One were also asked to draw pictures representing from their perspective conditions and issues they face in their communities, providing the evaluators with a deeper understanding of the dimensions of the issues raised and their emotional impact. Rainbow Research hired an illustrator to add color and detail to the youths’ depictions of conditions affecting their lives with instructions that he maintain the integrity of the content.

Focus Group Participant Demographics One hundred and thirty-three youth (133) participated in the 15 focus groups. Nearly all (95%) participants self-identified as youth of color: 50% African American; 23%

Rainbow Research, Inc.

6

Youth Engagement

Hispanic/Latino; 11% Asian/Pacific Islander, and; 11% multi-racial. Only 4% selfidentified as White (Table 3).

Table 3: Demographics of Youth Focus Group Participants (N=133) Demographics of Youth Focus Groups

Number of Participants

Percentage of Participants

12-14 15-17 18 and over Gender

26 72 35

20% 54% 26%

Female Male Other Race/Ethnicity

73 59 1

55% 44% 1%

66 1

50% 1%

15 6 30 8

11% 4% 23% 11%

Age

African American American Indian/Native American Asian/Pacific Islander White Latino/Hispanic Multi-racial*

* In the survey distributed to participants “multi-racial” was substituted for the category of “other”. Youth who checked multiple races were added to the category of “multi-racial”.

Focus Group Framework Rainbow Research hired and trained local youth to conduct the focus groups with their peers. Having successfully employed this approach on many past projects, it seemed particularly appropriate for an evaluation of FFC’s youth engagement focus. Youth participatory evaluation is enjoying increased currency in the field. Flores-Sabo (2008) proposes a model for engaging youth in every facet of evaluation from design to report writing, including focus group facilitation and other data collection activities. Benefits of this approach to participants include: 1) an increased sense of social responsibility, 2) increased self-confidence (Landon, 2003), and 3) the acquisition of leadership skills that support social change (Checkoway, 2003). It also yields reliable and valid data. If done correctly, it yields more authentic responses from youth than traditional adult-led focus groups (Sabo-Flores, 2008; Landon, 2003).

Rainbow Research, Inc.

7

Youth Engagement

Seven (7) youth ages 16-18, including three (3) members of the FFC-funded Youthadelphia, participated in a half-day focus group training with members of Rainbow Research staff and consultants. Training included: a presentation on focus group methodology; pilot testing focus group questions with participants in FFC funded programs and; practice conducting focus groups. Members of Rainbow Research staff and Philadelphia-based consultants hired by Rainbow Research provided supervision and informal mentoring to the youth facilitators throughout the evaluation process.

Comprehensive Out of School Time Data Base and Mapping A comprehensive data base of Out of School time programs in Philadelphia was compiled by Rainbow Research using the most up-to-date data bases it could acquire, assembled and maintained by departments and agencies of the city and state and by community not for profit organizations. Starting with a small number of contacts identified by the Foundation and key informants in the Out of School time community, Rainbow reached out by e-mail and phone to locate the sources and holders of these data bases, to request digital copies of these and to identify other OST data bases they might know about. Eighteen individuals were contacted and from them 12 different digital data bases and one paper directory were secured.

Data from the different data bases were merged by Rainbow into a single data base of just over 3700 discreet programs with one set of common data elements. Data elements included: provider name, site name, and site address, contact name and phone, age eligibility, enrollment requirements, months in which program is offered and source/holder of the information. Data cleaning entailed removal of duplicates, filling in incomplete information using on-line searches, spell checking/verifying, provider and site names and addresses. Rainbow Research’s GIS consultant standardized the data using a common font and format and standard abbreviations for e.g. street, road and boulevard. Once the data was cleaned and standardized, a consultant arranged for geocoding the data base and prepared maps according to the Foundation’s specifications. E.g. the distribution of OST programs in Philadelphia, by zip code and site serving youth 12 and older.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

8

Youth Engagement

Cross-Cutting Questions, Data Collection and Thematic Analysis Data analysis was organized around key areas identified by the Philadelphia Fund for Children (FFC). These areas, which were based on developed evaluation questions, include: Data collection and analysis were organized around evaluation questions of interest to the Philadelphia Fund for Children (FFC). These included: 1. What are the current and emerging needs of Philadelphia’s children and youth?

2. What has been the impact of FFC Funding on organizations? Youth?

3. What Levels of youth engagement have funded organizations realized?

 What models of youth engagement have they employed?  What has been the impact of engagement on the organization and youth participants and their communities 4. What are the perceptions of the FFC by its stakeholders?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of its strategy?  What are their opinions about its approach to youth engagement?

For purposes of analysis qualitative data from the transcripts were reduced, coded, and analyzed thematically within respondent group and when appropriate, compared and contrasted between them. These findings appear in the sections which follow.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

9

Youth Engagement

Identified below in Table 4 by respondent group are the corresponding items in each interview addressing the same respective evaluation questions.

Table 4: Cross-cutting Interview Items by Stakeholder Group and Evaluation Questions Question Content

Youth Focus Groups Questions

Agency Executive Questions

Key Informants Questions

11, 12

12

3, 5

2. Impact of Funding

5, 9

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

9

3. Levels of Youth Engagement

7, 10

3, 4

11

3. Perceptions of FFC

--

16, 17

10

4. Strategies/Recommendations

6

14, 15

4, 5, 7, 8, 12

1. Current and Emerging Issues

Rainbow Research, Inc.

10

Youth Engagement

Philadelphia’s Children and Youth: A Snapshot Who are the children?

In 2010, 343,837 children under 18 lived in Philadelphia. Slightly more were male (50.67%) than female. Almost a third (33%) were preschoolers under age 5, while the rest were between the ages of 5 and 17 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

An increasing proportion of the city’s youth were children of immigrant, refugee, and language-minority families. According to the 2010 census, over 11% of Philadelphia County’s population was immigrants. More than 44% of the County’s foreign-born population had entered the United States since 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Living arrangements Of the 343,004 children under the age of 18 living in a household, approximately 38% live in married-couple households with their parents. Almost 62% live in single-parent households, which is almost double the statewide percentage of 32%. Less than 1% lives in a household with adults who are not their biological parents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

An estimated 42,890 grandparents live with their grandchildren. Of these, almost 35%, or just over 15,000, are responsible for raising their grandchildren (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Poverty rates An estimated 123,467 children under the age of 18 (36%) live below the poverty line — over twice the percentage for the entire the state of Pennsylvania (18.8%). (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010)

Access to medical care An estimated 17, 715 children (5.2%) age 0-17 are uninsured. In 2007, Pennsylvania’s Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) expanded coverage with the Cover All Kids initiative. This expansion ensures that any uninsured child under 19 years, not eligible for Medical Assistance, has access to coverage through CHIP. Currently, 25,922 children in Philadelphia County are covered by CHIP. Statewide, 193,994 children are insured through CHIP. Of those children, more than 12,500 would not have been Rainbow Research, Inc.

11

Youth Engagement

eligible for coverage prior to the 2007 Cover All Kids expansion. Along with medical care, CHIP coverage includes prescriptions, dental care, and eye care (“Enrollment Figures” CHIP).

Education In 2000, Philadelphia School District was designated an Empowerment District by the State of Pennsylvania because over one-half of its students failed state tests in reading and math. The district was taken over by the State of Pennsylvania early in 2002.

After No Child Left Behind was passed into law in 2001, the School District of Philadelphia pledged to put qualified teachers in every classroom by June 2006. The School District has made great strides, except in schools where 85% or more of students are African American, Hispanic, and/or Asian/Pacific Islander. Short-term retention of teachers has improved. However, long-term retention (six or more years) remains low at 30%. As of 2006, 92% of the School Districts teachers met the designation of “qualified teacher” (full certification or intern certification). In 2006, only 423 teachers were teaching with emergency permits, compared to 2,597 teachers in 2002 (Useem et al., 2007).

Nearly eighty percent (79.6%) of students attending Philadelphia’s public schools are eligible for a free or reduced-price meal. This is an increase from 1991, when 75.1% of students were eligible. In 74 of 267 schools in the Philadelphia district, over 90% of students qualify for free or reduced price meals (Philadelphia Public School Notebook, December 2010).

Between 1995 and 2005, the graduation rate in Philadelphia Schools increased by 23.2% (Swanson, 2009). In 2005, the graduation rate for the Philadelphia City School District was 62.1%. A majority of students who drop out of school do so in the 10th grade.

During the 2005-2006 school year, over 68% of the Philadelphia School District’s fifth graders scored below proficiency in both math and reading (Gill, 2007).

Housing As of 2008, there were approximately 53,000 names on the waiting list for housing assistance in Philadelphia (Shields, 2008).

Approximately 4,000 people are officially homeless. This reflects only the number of families that are known to the Philadelphia shelter system or that are living on the streets. The numbers available from shelters are an underestimate, because they do not include families in transitional housing, low-demand residences, or substandard/unfit

Rainbow Research, Inc.

12

Youth Engagement

living conditions. Children in families constitute approximately one-third (33%) of the shelter population on any given night. By age cohort, persons under the age of 18 are the most prevalent shelter users (“Facts on Homelessness�, 2006�).

Rainbow Research, Inc.

13

Youth Engagement

Current and Emerging Issues During site visit interviews, key informants and agency executives were asked “What are the 3-5 most important issues facing children and youth 12-18 years of age in Philadelphia today?�

Table 5: Top 3 Current and Emerging Issues Key Informants Education Violence Poverty

Agency Executives Education Violence Safe Spaces

Youth Environment Violence Perception of Youth

In examining key informant and agency executive responses, the most frequently mentioned issue was access to quality education. Twenty-three (23) agency executives (75%) and fifteen (15) key informants (63%) expressed their concern about education system and its impact on youth.

Organizational leaders, key informants, and youth all agreed that violence was also an issue impacting the lives of youth. Fourteen (14) agency executives (45%) and half (50%) of key informants reported concerns about violence. Nine (9) organizations (30%) indicated that the lack of safety and safe places is an issue for youth. Approximately, one-third (33%) of key informants identified poverty as an issue.

While youth in focus groups agreed with key informants and agency executives that violence and safety were important issues, they also identified two other major issues: the (neighborhood) environment and the adult perception of youth. These appear to be issues that organizations, policymakers, and foundations could address immediately with the support of communities and youth.

Current Issue: Education The Philadelphia school system is the eighth largest school district in the United States with 291 public schools and 55 charter schools. Over 200,000 school children are educated in this large urban system with an annual school budget of approximately 1.7 billion dollars. According to standardized test data, 59% of students are proficient in math and 52% are proficient in reading. Only one-half of students (50%) entering 9th grade will graduate in four years (Belfanz, 2006.) Demographically, the district is 64%

Rainbow Research, Inc.

14

Youth Engagement

African American, 15.8% Hispanic, 5.6% Asian, and 13.3% White. Approximately 76% of school-aged children qualify for free and reduced lunch.

School District Financial and Leadership Challenges In 1998, the district was taken over by the state government after the city threatened to bring suit against the state for inadequate funding. During this period, the district’s budget shortfall was over $200 million. In 2002, the School District of Philadelphia’s school board was replaced with a School Reform Commission. The mandate of the SRC was to overcome continued low student achievement rates and a decade of budget crises. The SRC also implemented a “diverse provider” model for the district. Under this model, 45 of the lowest-performing schools in the district became for-profit and nonprofit organizations. These are privately managed and receive additional funding based on enrollment. Another 21 schools, also considered to be low-performing, went through restructuring implemented by the SRC. These schools were provided with intensive staff support and extra funding based on student enrollment.

Percentage of Philadelphia students achieveving proficiency on the Pennsylvania System of Studnet Assessment (2002-2006)

Graph 1: Philadelphia Student Proficiency in Math & Reading 2002-06 50 40 30 20 10 0

Fifth-grade reading Fifth-grade math Eighth-grade reading 2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Eighth-grade math

Source: State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Student Achievement in Philadelphia, 2007.

While achievement levels have steadily risen since 1999, many informants cited problems caused by the tense departure in August 2011 of Arlene Ackerman, a popular African American superintendent. Key informants and newspaper accounts gave mixed views of her tenure, often along racial lines. Some informants associate Ackerman with higher test scores, a decline in violent incidents, and increased graduation rates. They view these gains as significant given the constraints of an unsupportive and unresponsive school system. But others cite her contentious and public departure as problematic. According to newspaper reports, Ackerman received a $900,000.00 buy out, to which members of the business community contributed over $400,000.

Ackerman also left a huge budget deficit (approximately $620 million), a flawed zero tolerance policy, and a state test cheating scandal. Many who identified education as a key issue felt that Ackerman’s tenure left a cloud over the school district.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

15

Youth Engagement

Unfavorable Public Opinion Differences of opinion over the former superintendants performance not withstanding, public opinion of education Philadelphia is not favorable. According to the 2009 Philadelphia Quality of Life Survey by the Pew Charitable Trust (2009), only 28% of parents surveyed identified the public schools as good or above-average. Although these numbers were up by about 5% from the same survey given in 1995, it is evident that the community has a low opinion of the Philadelphia schools. One key informant put it this way: “If we think of education as a brand in Philadelphia, there’s a lot of work to do to rejuvenate that image.”

Issues cited by key informants included:  Dropout rates as high as 50%  High turn over in central office leadership  Reduction of funding for after-school programs, including the elimination of free after-school and weekend facility use  Reduction or elimination of extracurricular activities like arts and music  The zero tolerance policy which forced children out of school into unstructured environments  The “soiled” reputation of the school district is a barrier to collaborative relationships with other institutions.

Graph 2: Philadelphia High School Graduation Rates 2002-11

Rainbow Research, Inc.

16

Youth Engagement

Zero Tolerance Respondents saw the zero tolerance policy as a major issue with huge implications for youth. Since the zero tolerance has been implemented, suspensions of 10 days or more and expulsions have risen dramatically.

Graph 3: Philadelphia Student Suspension and Expulsion Rates

Number of Expulsions in Philadelphia School District 2003-2010

2003-04 to 2008-09 10-Day Out-of-School Suspensions 1500 1078

1000

191

500 0 0 2003-04

2005-06

134

# of students

40 2008-09

Source: School District of Philadelphia

31 2003-07

2008-09

2009-10

Source: School District of Philadelphia, Education Law Center

The zero tolerance policy, along with the high dropout rate and the elimination of afterschool programming, has put more students on the street to become potential victims or perpetrators of violent crimes. Many informants said that suspended and expelled youth were being tracked into the juvenile justice system. Many saw zero tolerance as a larger punitive policy that dramatically changed youth outcomes, and they noted that children of color were more likely than their White counterparts to end up in the system.

Limited After-School Activities Key informants and agency executives noted that youth need safe spaces for after-school activities because parental supervision is lacking.

Programs able to continue operation without school district support found that demand was greater than available resources.

Picture adapted from youth focus group drawing

Rainbow Research, Inc.

17

Youth Engagement

Youth in focus groups also saw the elimination of safe spaces as problematic. Some said that having a safe space with an adult presence diverted their attention from other less appropriate activities.

Among other things, the teens complained about lack of access to libraries. “… [P]eople need to do their schoolwork,” said one. “Everybody don’t got no computer and books in the house.”

Lack of Expressive Outlets Many youth, agency executives, and key informants mentioned the elimination of extracurricular activities, art, and music as problematic. Some noted that extracurricular activities provided an escape for youth struggling academically or socially. Others saw the arts as an opportunity for youth to express themselves. Youth felt that with proper adult supervision, inappropriate activities could become positive creative expression.

For example, graffiti could be turned into murals and flash mobs into dance activities or general meetings.

School Violence Key informants also cited the negative impact of school violence. Many had witnessed attacks on teachers, and racially motivated violence, such as conflicts between Asians and African Americans in South Philadelphia. One informant noted that immigrant children were easy targets for bullies in the schools.

Administrative Turnover and Lack of Funding Key informants said that administrative turnover impacted school planning processes and hindered programmatic relationships with funders and community-based organizations.

Youth in focus groups were particularly insightful about the inequities that resulted from school district policy decisions. Some noted, for example, that money seemed to flow to the charter schools, while neighborhood schools lacked textbooks and supplies.

Others said that many students in their neighborhood schools feel that nobody cares about them, and as a result, they don’t care about themselves. “When you give them more opportunities to try to learn their stuff,” said one youth, “they'll want to do better.”

Rainbow Research, Inc.

18

Youth Engagement

High Dropout Rates and Low Achievement Key informants and agency executives provided clear examples of how high dropout rates and poor test scores impact youth. They said that though some schools have improved, many are still chaotic, even violent. Expectations for students are low. Many youth are unprepared for adult life. Said one interviewee, “You can predict the prison population by who can read by the time they get to fourth grade.”

Some respondents noted that many educators tend to focus on barriers such as poverty and single-parent families, believing children in these situations are destined to do poorly in school. “But kids don’t drop out because they’re poor”, said one informant.

“They drop out because they’re not developing the academic skills and the personal behaviors they need to be successful. And this is due in large part to the low expectations of school personnel”. This same informant also noted that all too often students don’t see any connection between school and adult life.

Current Issues: Violence and Safety Homicide Rates Interviewees in all three groups identified violence as one of the top three current and emerging issues. In 2007, Philadelphia had the highest homicide rate in decades, surpassing New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. A total of 391 homicides occurred that year. In 2011, there were 324 homicides and as of March 8, 2012, already 61 homicides had occurred. Philadelphia continues to have the nation’s highest homicide rate (“Crime Maps & Stats, 2012). According to FBI statistics, the 2010 murder rate in Philadelphia was 20 per 100,000 people, or about one murder per day.

Graph 4: Philadelphia Homicide Rates 2004-11

Philadelphia Homicide Rates 2004-2011 450 400 350 330 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2004

377

# of homicides 2004-05 # of homicides 2006-11

2005

2006

0 2007

0 2008

0 2009

0 2010

0 2011

Source: Philadelphia Police Department

Rainbow Research, Inc.

19

Youth Engagement

Perception of Safety According to the Pew Foundation 2009 Quality of life survey, residents of Philadelphia see crime as the top problem facing the city. Sixty-four percent (64%) of residents surveyed identified crime as a “very or somewhat serious issue” and about one-third (33%) said they would be willing to move away from the city of Philadelphia if given the opportunity. Of those willing to move, 36% indicated that concern about crime was the driving force for wanting to relocate.

Feelings of safety differed along racial lines. The same Pew study found that 42% of African Americans and 51% of Latinos feel “a little unsafe” or “not safe at all” in their communities, compared to 31% for White residents.

According to a recent CNN report, the majority of homicides in 2012 occurred in North Philadelphia, a predominantly African American and Latino section of the city. On the day a Rainbow evaluator conducted an interview with the MIMIC organization in North Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood, a youth had been murdered just hours earlier only a few blocks from the interview location.

The Normalization of Violence Many interviewees said that violence is becoming an everyday experience for Philadelphia youth. A key informant described this normalization process: … I go out to the suburbs … a guy says to me, “You see that spot over there near that corner? A guy got killed over there 10 years ago!” … But if you come here (North Philadelphia), somebody gets shot on this corner right here, 20 minutes later everything’s back to normal… It becomes a way of life.

Several youth in focus groups shared their own experiences with violence. They described shootouts on their block, animal abuse, murders, and robberies.

Both the scholarly literature and our focus group data show that constant community violence has created a generation of youth that identifies self-isolation as a form of survival. This self-isolation potentially limits basic quality-of-life experiences like the ability to take a stroll in the neighborhood or sit in the park. One-third (33%) of Philadelphians who participated in the Pew Foundation Quality of Life Survey (2009) said that such basic experiences are missing from the day-to-day life of the city’s youth.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

20

Youth Engagement

Many youth told us that walking in their community has become an experience filled with peril and heightened agitation. One girl, for example, was sexually assaulted at age 12 while she walked to the train: “This guy went up my skirt.” Others reported that drug dealers openly plied their trade on the street. One teen noted, “…folks are hostage in their own home.”

To combat these harrowing day-to-day experiences, some programs choose to broaden the horizons of local youth by taking them out of their environment and showing them the beauty of the city. But after these excursions, participants must return home. One key informant told of mentoring a young teen that she took to other parts of the city.

The mentor discovered that the girl felt uncomfortable outside her own community.

What the teen really wanted was to sit undisturbed in her neighborhood park.

When combined with self-imposed isolation, exposure to new environments elsewhere in the city may contribute to youth to de-identifying with their home communities. The extent to which this de-identification proves problematic will be explored in the conclusion.

Current Issue: Poverty Living in poverty entails not only material want including the lack of adequate shelter, clothing and nutrition and living-wage employment but also exposure to an unhealthy physical environment and lack of access to affordable health care and quality education.

Communities that don’t meet these basic needs also have higher rates of crime, unemployment, and homelessness; poorer educational outcomes; more single-parent households; and higher rates of drug and alcohol addiction.

Poverty and Unemployment Rates Philadelphia currently has a poverty rate of 27%. This compares to the national rate of 15%. Between 2007 and 2011, the number of people living in poverty in Philadelphia rose by 64,000. During the same period, free and reduced lunch rates, often use as l a proxy measure for poverty, remained at 76%.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

21

Youth Engagement

Graph 5: Philadelphia Poverty Rates 2000 -2010 The current unemployment rate in Philadelphia is 10.8% (compared to 9.8% nationally).

But some sources state that close to 56% of the city’s male residents are underemployed or no longer in the workforce.

These rates also vary by race.

According to U.S. Labor Force statistics, the unemployment rate for African Americans in the city is twice that of Whites.

Impact on the Family Structure Poverty also appears to have impacted the family structure. Although 31% of households in Pennsylvania are headed by a single parent, the rate for Philadelphia households hovers around 58%. Philadelphia also has a sexually-transmitted infection rate (STI) that is nearly three times higher that the rate for the state and a teen pregnancy rate double that for the state. The rate of violent crime is nearly four times that for the state as a whole (County health rankings).

The Trauma of Poverty According to researchers, youth and families living in persistent urban poverty experience ongoing stress and trauma. According to research by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network cited in a U.S. Department of Human Services Study (Collins, 2010), children in urban high poverty households are regularly exposed to violent crime in their neighborhood, school gangs, drug activity, house fires, victimization, incarceration or death of a family member, family violence, and maltreatment.

Youth exposed to chronic trauma often have low expectations for the future. They may experience ongoing functional impairments, including substance abuse, delinquency, suicidality, chronic anger, and unstable relationships (Davies and Flannery, 1998; Pynoos, 1999).

Rainbow Research, Inc.

22

Youth Engagement

Many youth in our focus groups clearly articulated the traumas of poverty and neglect.

One youth worried about the health of the “little kids.” Left unsupervised from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., these children hung out at the corner store and bought soda and “stuff that’s just like not healthy.”

One key informant who had experience with traumatized youth said that in the secure detention center where she worked just about every child had either seen someone shot or knew someone who had been shot.

And usually that person was someone their own age. When asked what they saw themselves doing at age 25, most would reply, “I don’t know if I’m going to be alive at 25.”

This same informant added that many incarcerated youth have no nurturing, caring adult in their life: “… violent or not violent, Black or White, they are children. …They want to know that there’s an adult who loves them, who cares about them...”

Another respondent who worked with incarcerated youth noted that the intake process frequently identified poor reading and math abilities, along with mental health needs, such as depression and suicidal tendencies. In addition, according to another informant, about 70% of incarcerated youth were identified during intake as having substance abuse issues.

During focus groups, youth identified drug use as a symptom of poverty and lack of economic opportunity.

Some youth saw the selling of drugs as an economic necessity due to the lack of available employment.

Youth Issues: Physical, Built and Social Environment While key informants and agency executives primarily focused on systems issues, youth were concerned about day-to-day quality of life issues. For them, the community’s physical, built and social environment

Rainbow Research, Inc.

23

Youth Engagement

was the most important issue. Conditions that they described are what are called in the public health literature social, economic and environmental determinants of health (SEEDOH).

In strikingly vivid terms during the focus groups youth described how widespread litter, trash, abandoned homes, and graffiti impacted their lives. Some said they couldn’t sit down in a park because it was full of trash and needles. Others complained about streets filled with drunks, stray animals, pregnant teenagers, and men who harass girls and women walking down the street after dark. They also described the dilapidated character of their surroundings - dirty restaurants, abandoned factories, houses that weren’t maintained, and the lack of landscaping. Others talked about hearing gunshots followed by the SWAT team’s arrival.

They believed that many of these issues could be easily addressed and wondered why the city didn’t take a more active role in dealing with them.

Youth felt that if these issues were attended to, their lives would be improved. For example, one teen suggested cleaning up crack houses and turning them into safe spaces where children could play. Another said that she had started cleaning up trash on her block because “this is where I live.”

Youth saw the need for more programs to improve the quality of life in their communities. One participant wanted a “community service program so that kids can all get together and clean up the streets.”

Youth Issues: Lack of Voice and Inaccurate Adult Perceptions The FFC focus on youth empowerment aligns with youth’s own concerns about the need for adults to “hear their voices” and “perceive them accurately.” Many key informants supported FFC youth engagement strategies, and the majority of agency executives (90%) describe how youth are included in their organization’s planning, programming, and decision-making.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

24

Youth Engagement

Neither key informants nor agency directors, however, identified the lack of youth voice in policymaking or programming as a major issue.

Some key informants who held important decision-making roles preferred a more adult-focused model of youth engagement. These adults felt that youth were not in a position to understand their own needs.

The Need to be Heard In contrast, many of youth in focus groups wanted adults to hear their concerns and needs in respectful ways. Youth in groups such as Youth United for Change and Philadelphia Student Union, while actively engaged on issues related to social equity, expressed frustration with how they were perceived by adults.

Many adults, they said, saw them as “just kids” who don’t know what they’re talking about. In addition, they were tired of adults, including the police, routinely perceiving them as troublemakers and criminals. If adults just gave them the opportunity to talk about what would and wouldn’t work for them, said one youth, crime rates would probably go down, and fewer youth would go to jail.

Some youth expressed frustration with institutions. They saw themselves as having the potential to provide solutions to many of the issues they raised.

Some key informants and agency executives also echoed the need for youth voices to be heard and called for a reexamination of how institutions viewed, listened to, and empowered youth. These adults felt that decision-making and program development could be improved if youth had opportunities to be candid and be heard.

Although she didn’t condone them, one key informant saw flash mobs as a sign that young people needed attention: “It really is about young people who are desiring to have their voices heard, and who may in fact have needs that we, as a community, can attend to if we will take the time to listen.”

Some of the key informants and agency executives worried about the effect of negative stereotypes on the self-esteem of the city’s youth:”If they get stuck in one idea of themselves, it is so hard to break out of it, they will end up living up to that expectation.”

There was also praise for the mayor by the adult informants: “We’re fortunate that we have a mayor who has a youth commission that really pulls together with young

Rainbow Research, Inc.

25

Youth Engagement

people, who’s done some incredible outreach to try to engage youth in a different way, different from what they’ve done in the past.”

Emerging Issues Key informants, agency executives, and youth struggled to identify emerging issues.

Many respondents stated simply that the issues associated with the educational system, violence, poverty, and from the youth perspective — lack of youth voice — were ongoing and that current and emerging issues were interrelated.

Table 6: Emerging Issues Emerging Issues 1. Sense of Hopelessness 2. Community Disintegration

When pressed, youth, agency executives, and key informants expressed concerns about a growing sense of hopelessness among Philadelphia’s youth. They believed that this hopelessness could potentially contribute to criminal behavior, violence, and other risk behaviors that are manifesting themselves at ever younger ages.

Respondents also alluded to violence contributing to community disintegration. The movement of high-achieving students away from their traditional community schools was seen as contributing to the fragmentation of community bonds.

Finally, respondents identified the impact of technology on youth interactions as an emerging issue. They believe that social media is a two-edged sword, having the potential to broaden local conflict, as well as increase the humanistic nature of communication.

Emerging Issue: Sense of Hopelessness The impact of poor educational systems, unemployment, poverty, violence, and the perception of limited youth voice contribute to youth hopelessness. This sense of hopelessness perpetuates a cycle of community violence and a sense of disengagement, disillusionment, and nihilism.

Youth were pessimistic about things getting better. “It’s gonna get worse,” one youth said. ”In my neighborhood, there’s fights a lot, and there’s shootings sometimes, but there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Rainbow Research, Inc.

26

Youth Engagement

Because of urban poverty, many youth take on adult roles at young ages, roles that they can’t carry out. Many teenage parents simply abandon their children for days at a time, or are forced to leave their children in someone else’s care while they are incarcerated.

Mothers who had children at age 13 or 14 eventually find themselves dealing with difficult teens. If a new man comes into their life who doesn’t like their children or their neighborhood, they may move away with him and leave the children behind. Fathers incarcerated as young men often come home to teenagers who are angry and disrespectful.

The inter-generational cycle of poverty is perpetuated by and contributes to fatalism, adolescent parenting, and lack of structure. Brought up in these circumstances large numbers of youth have little compassion and little respect for adults. One key informant shared his experiences in the public schools: “… [Kids] know teachers can’t hit them, or put their hands on them…. You got a group of kids walking in the classroom. You got kids walking down hallways. Crowds, like packs of wolves, preying on the weak!”

Some key informants also noted that technology gives youth access to adult content before they are developmentally able to process the information. Another informant described the violent results of Facebook postings and texting, which can lead to cyberbullying and suicide.

Emerging Issue: Community Disintegration Although they didn’t mention it specifically, many youth alluded to a disappearing sense of community. Some talked about how the educational system creates intense pressure on high-achieving youth to leave the community. During trainings with the youth focus group facilitators, all high-achievers, many informal discussions centered on which schools they would be attending outside of their communities.

Individualism vs. Collectivism In some youth focus groups, participants discussed the need to focus on themselves, rather than others in the community. According to one participant, people had stopped helping each other, and there was a sense of “every man for himself.”

Rainbow Research, Inc.

27

Youth Engagement

Another youth said that if, for example, an old lady fell down on the street, that most other people would either keep on walking or simply stand there and watch. But most wouldn’t stop to help.

Some adults felt this attitude was a result of cuts to state and local programs that once provided safety nets for vulnerable populations, including youth. According to one respondent, “…folks are making decisions for our youth according to budget, instead of moral decisions…”

Impact of Social Media Some respondents believed that technology has moved youth away from face-to-face communication with a negative impact on community interactions. They felt that even though the Internet and social media have broadened communities in some ways, simple daily interactions with a human face are being lost. One interviewee noted that communication with “21st century kids” has to be very intentional because they are not used to carrying on a conversation with another human being. Today’s youth, she said, want everything now and because of texting, their verbal communication skills are abysmal.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

28

Youth Engagement

Impact of FFC Funding Impact of Funding on Youth When asked about what they had learned as a result of their participation in FFCfunded programming, youth cited examples of leadership, critical thinking, and academic and employment skill development.

As one would expect, skills acquisition was strongly connected with the funded focus on education (80%), economic well-being (46.7%), and safety (23.3%).

Benefits also included increased self-confidence and self-understanding, a noticeable improvement in grades and attitudes about college, better critical thinking skills, greater understanding of world and community issues and stronger conflict management skills. In addition, youth said that FFC-funded programs gave them a safe space to spend time around positive adults.

Leadership Skills Programs gave participants opportunities for leadership. Youth facilitated dialogues with their peers, learned how to articulate their opinions, and practiced teamwork to achieve goals. According to one teen, “… [Working as a facilitator] has put me in the position of getting to know people in other organizations; it’s given me … resources I can use in the future.” Another said simply that participation in the program “…helps me to present myself.”

As youth learned leadership skills, they said their self-confidence grew. As a result, they became more comfortable with oral presentations. They said they felt more at ease when interacting with individuals different from themselves. One youth summed it up this way: “…I came here, [and] I learned to be a more people person.”

Rainbow Research, Inc.

29

Youth Engagement

Life and Academic Skills Youth said they learned coping skills that helped them manage everyday stress. They also learned life skills such as cooking. Some programs also provided direct academic tutoring and opportunities to refine computer skills. One youth said he had learned how to use PowerPoint and other Microsoft programs, as well as how to be better organized. Another talked about learning “responsibility [and] dependability.”

When programs offered tutoring and homework help, the tangible benefits to participants were higher test scores and improved grades. Youth also appeared to develop a stronger future orientation and a better understanding of the importance of college. “It’s made me think about everything that’s out there waiting for us after high school,” one youth said. “You’ve just got to reach out and grab it…”

Critical-Thinking Skills In the focus groups, program participants talked about learning to think critically. For example, they had learned to draw correlations between hate speech and violence. One teen said, “…I learned ways to always think about things that I want to say out loud before saying it, because now that I know it’s a type of violence…”

Those who talked about beginning to think more critically said they became open to new ideas and developed a better understanding of themselves and their place in the world. “I…got more interested around watching the news and trying to figure out if I could help from here what was going in Afghanistan,” one youth reported.

Safe Space with Caring Adults Students participating in FFC-funded programs said that these “out-of-school-time” (OST) programs gave them a safe space to be themselves amid the daily challenges of youth violence, unsafe neighborhoods, and lack of parental supervision after school.

Twenty-three percent (23.3%) of programs mentioned in interviews focused on safe spaces and safety skills.

Youth said they appreciated the support of staff and other participants and they valued the opportunity to learn how to interact with people in a safe way, how to cooperate with others, and how to form bonds with members of their community. They also enjoyed learning about their culture and heritage and in some case, having an alternative to being at home. Said one youth, “The Boys and Girls Club, if they wasn't here I'd probably be on the streets, doing something dumb most likely, but the rec helped me stay on the right path. That's why I'm in college now.”

Rainbow Research, Inc.

30

Youth Engagement

Impact of Funding on the Community Half (50%) of the grantees interviewed indicated that their agency’s programs provided opportunities for youth to engage in community service or service learning. Youth stated that they felt empowered when they had the opportunity to learn about an issue, dialogue with each other, and then work at improving the lives of others. Youth, they said, appeared to enjoy making a difference in their communities.

During service days, teens cleaned up parks and performed other needed tasks in the community. During retreats, they focused on issues like poverty, racism, and current events. As a result, said one teen, “I feel like … we can…become a part of something bigger, seeing more of us graduate, out of school than in incarceration, making us feel we can go on to college and be better people in the world, make it a better place.”

Impact of Funding on Organizations Ninety percent (90%) of grantees said that FFC funding contributed to their organization’s sustainability by supporting the expansion and deepening of programming, increasing their ability to network and collaborate with other agencies, and developing their capacity to leverage additional funds.

Graph 6: Organization Responses on Impact of FFC Funding Helped form sustaining partnerships/collaborations

5

Longevity of programming through funding

2

Does not help build or increase sustainability

3

Helps with basic needs to keep organization going

4

Allows for capacity to leverage for additional funds Helped extend programming that leads to youth retention Funding has helped organization gain more credibility with other funders

5 2 4

Helped to broaden organization's reach/focus

6 0

Rainbow Research, Inc.

2

4

6

8

31

Youth Engagement

Program Expansion and Greater Youth Retention FFC funding allowed many organizations to start new programs focusing on un-met needs. One organization, for example, both expanded its reach and narrowed its focus to serve Latino/LGBT youth. Others created programming for underserved groups like Hispanic girls and immigrant students in non-English-speaking families. One organization received a National Arts in Humanities Youth Program award for arts programming supported by FFC funding.

In some cases, FFC funding also allowed organizations to expand existing programs in order to reach youth beyond the community they traditionally served. One organization began recruiting low-income students to existing programs. Another started recruiting youth in shelters.

In addition, organizations used FFC funding to offer “longer and deeper” programming. These extended programs fostered greater participant retention and made possible more robust youth outcomes. One organization used funding to offer more scholarships to summer camps, which led to the retention of participants they recruited during the school year.

Because FFC funding allowed organizations to create programming that was more responsive to youth needs, participants tended to remain in the programs longer. As one interviewee explained, “We don’t have to refresh the program member base yearly.

Youth are staying on for at least a couple of years.”

Increased Ability to Partner, Network, and Collaborate with other Agencies Eighty-four percent (84%) of grantees indicated that FFC funding gave their organizations an increased ability to partner, network, and collaborate with other agencies.

FFC-sponsored programming introduced grantees to potential partners. FFC funding provided more visibility and credibility in the eyes of others, and allowed grantees to create programming that served the partnership interests of businesses, universities, and schools. In all cases, grantees said that their work was extended and strengthened through the enrichment of on-going collaborations or the addition of new ones.

For instance, one organization built new partnerships with a high school and a nearby park, with the Friends of the Park, with the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, and with local universities. FFC funding allowed this organization to maintain the consistent staffing needed to lead programs and capitalize on these partnerships.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

32

Youth Engagement

Many partnerships continued to be productive even after FFC funding ended. One grantee noted that although funding had ended, “…the work around the community has not.”

Some organizations used FFC funding to form advisory committees, such as youth boards, that helped guide their work.

Graph 7: Effect of FFC Funding on Ability to Partner, Network, and Collaborate

Funding has not built or increased agency's capacity

3

Met other organizations through FFC sponsored events

1

1 Gave organization more visibility/credibility 4 Made programming possible Became involved with partner, network, or collaboration

26 0

10

20

30

# of Respondents

General Operating Support The Philadelphia Foundation was praised by grantees for being one of the few funders that provided grant dollars for general operating expenses. This allowed organizations to address other vital needs, such as staff development and more effective management practices.

One organization used FFC funding to overhaul its donor-management system.

Another used funding to focus on “foundational elements of programming,” which meant that the staff no longer had to scramble to cover day-to-day expenses.

An arts organization funded its education programs with FFC grants. As a result, “[we can] pay for our productions with ticket sales... When we don’t have to divert ticket

Rainbow Research, Inc.

33

Youth Engagement

sales money away from productions; that makes for better productions. Better productions build up our audiences and also, by extension, our donor-base.”

When grant dollars can be used for general operating support, organizations are more financially stable, and they can be innovative rather than reactive. Many grantees used FFC funds to support staff and student participants. As a result, they could provide more consistent services.

Ability to Leverage Additional Funding Approximately 73% of grantees said that FFC funding had increased their ability to leverage external funding and in-kind contributions. Of these, 70% indicated that the funding also helped enhance their credibility and visibility.

Grantees believed that FFC support was a sign to other funders of program quality and organizational stability. As one interviewee put it: “The Philadelphia Foundation is certainly a well-respected foundation... Other funders see their name and know that you are vetted...” Said another, “[FFC funding] opened up some other funding doors; makes us eligible for other funding without abandoning our mission.”

Leveraging also included the ability to access staffing such as AmeriCorps volunteers.

Graph 8: FFC Funding Help in Leveraging Additional Funding Has not helped leverage additional funding

5

I don't know; other people in our organization work in this capacity

3

Able to hire outside consultant

1

Allowed program to be more organized to increase leveraging of additional funds

5

Funding from FFC has given the organization more visibility/credibility to other funders

15 0

Rainbow Research, Inc.

5

10 15 # of Respondents (N=29)

20

34

Youth Engagement

Addressing the Issues Earlier in this report, it was noted that interviewees identified education, poverty, and violence as the most pressing issues for youth ages 12-18 in the city of Philadelphia.

When asked about the issues addressed by FCC-funded programs (more than one could be selected), grantees said that their programs 1) provided opportunities for youth to volunteer in their community, 2) increased achievement levels, 3) provided experts within schools for arts and music education, 4) supported youth leadership development, 5) provided training for future employment, 6) provided healthcare to youth, 7) improved decision-making skills of youth, and 8) improved the connection between the community and youth-serving organizations.

Among the most common services offered are life skills, mentoring, community service opportunities, service learning opportunities, and job skills development.

Table 7: Youth-related Issues Addressed by Grantees Interviewed Youth-related Issues Addressed by Program Economic well-being Education Health Safety Immigrants and refugees Juvenile justice Environmental justice

Number of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

16 26 15 9 5 8 4

52% 84% 48% 29% 16% 26% 13%

Table 8: Other Youth-related Issues Addressed by Grantees Interviewed  Job readiness



Safe environment

 Self-expression

 Peace and conflict resolution  Teen parenting



Poverty

 Leadership

 Civic engagement



Lack of role models

 Arts education

 Cultural experience



Foster care

 Youth voice/youth

 Music appreciation

development

empowerment  Homelessness

Rainbow Research, Inc.

 Literacy

35

Youth Engagement

Education Eighty percent (80%) of grantee organizations offered an educational component that focused on leadership, good decision-making skills, and tutoring. Grantees saw many benefits of an educational focus. For example, one interviewee noted that over 90% of the boys in his program go on to college and a significant number go on to graduate school. Another interviewee said that she saw more girls choosing education and careers instead of becoming teen mothers.

Economic Well-Being and Poverty Close to fifty percent (47%) of programs focused on improving the economic well-being of youth. Poverty-reduction strategies centered on developing the skills needed to escape the cycle of poverty. Participants in one program were offered employment opportunities with some of the city’s largest employers. That same program also included work-readiness training, offered in partnership with large employers.

Health Forty percent (40%) of grantees indicated that they also address health-related issues.

While health was not listed by any group as a top issue, many interviewees considered it important. Said one: In 2008, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services issued a statement saying that 74% of kids in the city are overweight or obese. We have been following the kids in our own programs for five years, and 84.5% of our kids are now scoring in the “healthy fitness zone,” which means that their weights fall within a healthy range according to national indicators.

Safety Twenty three percent (23%) of grantees indicated that their program addresses safety issues. Though most did not specifically mention this as a focus, a generally accepted value of OST programs is providing youth a safe place for with adult supervision. This cannot be underestimated as many of the youth’s parents and guardians who are unavailable to provide supervision and support between the end of the school day and the early evening.

The benefit is often long-term. One interviewee noted: “[This] is a safe space to grow …until they are ready to be who they are. They have been coming since they were 14 and now they are 18 and in college and when they come back, this is a home, they have a place to connect.”

Rainbow Research, Inc.

36

Youth Engagement

Environmental Justice and Community Service There appears to be a lack of programming that directly addressing environmental issues raised by youth such as litter and garbage, air pollution, abandoned houses, and noise pollution. Concern for the environment is a key issue identified by the youth interviewed for this report. The disconnection between adult perceptions of youth needs and youth perceptions of what their community’s need will be explored in the conclusion and recommendations.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

37

Youth Engagement

Levels of Youth Engagement The Philadelphia Foundation Fund for Children has an extensive focus on funding programming with an emphasis on youth engagement.

“Youth engagement” is defined by FFC as any programming that engages youth in the planning, decision-making, and evaluation of the funded organization.

Benefits of Engagement Research show that the positive benefits of programming that engage youth in the organizational structure including: (Larson, 2005; Walker, 2004; Flore-Sabo, 2008):

• Development of leadership, teamwork, and strategic skills  Youth empowerment 

The ability to communicate effectively



Carry over new skill sets to daily life



Growth of multicultural competency



Development in building quality and caring relationships

These positive benefits mirror closely the benefits to youth identified during the evaluation process (see pages 28-29).

Levels of Engagement Roger Hart, professor of Environmental and Developmental Psychology at the City University of New York, and author of several publications for UNICEF, has developed a “Ladder of Participation,” that provides an excellent framework for evaluating levels of youth engagement in programming.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

38

Youth Engagement

On the top rung is “child-initiated, shared decisions with adults.” This entails intergenerational participation, and adults serving as listeners, observers, and sounding boards, and high trust between youth and adults. This trust allows youth to ask adults for their input in the decision-making process. The bottom five rungs of the ladder represent different levels of adult-driven programming: ranging from no youth engagement to various levels of engagement in program planning and implementation.

Hart’s Ladder of Participation Intergenerational

Youth-driven Youth-led

Adult-driven

Dr. Roger Hart is a professor in the Ph.D. Psychology Program of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and is co-director of the Children’s Environments Research Group.

Hart’s ladder, in conjunction with the literature on intergenerational, youth-driven, youth-led, and adult-led models of programming (Jones, 2006; Larson, 2005; Sullivan, 2009; Zeldin, 2005; Listen Inc., 2000), provides a framework for understanding levels of youth engagement in FFC-funded organizations.

Accordingly, any programming that is self-identified as youth-led, youth-driven, or intergenerational must meet the criteria identified in levels 6, 7, or 8 of Hart’s ladder.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

39

Youth Engagement

Engagement in Grantee Programs As part of the evaluation process, grantees were asked to read the definitions provided in Table 9 (below) and to self-identify their youth-engagement framework.

Based on their responses, 84% of grantees (24) met the evaluation definition of adequate youth engagement. In addition, 35% of the grantees (11) met the highest level of engagement—intergenerational. One program, which was self-identified by the grantee as adult-driven, was re-categorized based on the interviewee’s qualitative responses.

Table 9: Youth Participation/Engagement Models Used by Grantees Interviewed Type of Participation/Engagement Model

Number of Respondents

Youth-driven – program is predominantly run by youth but the sponsoring organization is predominantly run by adults

10

Youth-led – organization and program are governed by young people

3

Intergenerational – adults and youth work side by side on broader community issues, but youth do the bulk of their work in youth-only setting (e.g., work with other youth on advocacy projects championing issues that affect both adults and youth, e.g., homelessness or health care)

11

Adult-driven – program is run and governed by adults

5

Combination – youth-driven and youth-led

2

During their interviews, agency executives reflected on the ways that youth were involved in the planning, decision-making, and evaluation processes of their organization. FFC funding allowed one organization to train staff, youth, and board in the youth decision-making model. Participating youth took their skills back to the community as peer role models for other teens.

In other organizations, youth served on governing boards, leadership teams, planning committees, and advisory groups. They testified before city commissions; organized events, such as a fundraiser for Haitian relief; and wrote grant proposals.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

40

Youth Engagement

Here’s how youth engagement unfolded in one organization: …We have a youth taskforce made up of youth representing all the teams that are part of the Students Run Philly Style program. These youth help look at everything from branding to the races that teams are participating in. They give lots of feedback on the program, and at the recommendation of the Philadelphia Foundation, these youth helped to develop an official grievance policy for youth experiencing issues with their mentors [or] the program.

Five programs (16%) fell below the ideal level of youth engagement. There was a clear contrast between these programs and those that were youth-led, youth-driven, and intergenerational. In adult-driven programming, youth engagement was generally limited to input through surveys and focus groups.

Several adult-led programs were based on curriculum mandated by the state (for an inschool program) or by the national office of the parent organization. “In a way, our hands are tied,” said an interviewee from one of these organizations.

A representative of one organization whose programming was adult-led felt that youth lacked the skills to make good decisions: “The program is helping them understand responsibility and decision-making in their own lives…This should happen first before they could make decisions for the organization. “ This sentiment was also expressed by more than one key informant, although most FFC grantees did not share it.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

41

Youth Engagement

Perceptions of FFC Key informants and grantees differed in their perceptions of the Philadelphia Foundation. Ninety percent (90%) of grantees believed that the Foundation was supportive, aligned with their own mission of youth development, and committed to youth engagement strategies. Grantees also cited the Foundation staff understanding of youth development, and its willingness to provide dollars for general operations.

Grantees were particularly impressed with the Foundation’s use of YOUTHadelphia, a youth advisory group for the FFC, as a decision-maker for the small grants process.

Grantees felt that the FFC was an excellent role model for the organizations it funded.

FFC, grantees stated, was accessible when they needed technical assistance.

Table 10: Respondent Perceptions of FFC Agency Executive’s Perceptions of Philadelphia FFC No Response Positive Negative

2 28 1

Key Informant Perceptions of Philadelphia FFC 13 10 7

In contrast, 41% of key informants did not feel comfortable responding to questions about the Foundation’s strengths and weakness, even though most (26) of those interviewed strongly supported the Foundation’s focus on youth engagement and believed that the Foundation was moving in an “important” and “critical” direction.

Of those key informants who did give an opinion, 10 (32%) provided positive assessments and 7 (22%) identified areas for improvement. According to these interviewees, the Foundation’s focus on youth engagement was a plus.

The personal is political. Among those informants with negative perceptions, off the record examples were offered of past negative interactions between them and Foundation staff around which they harbor hard feelings. Some fence-mending is in order before collaboration around OST work can successfully proceed.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

42

Youth Engagement

Table 11: Respondent Perceptions of FFC Strengths and Weaknesses Respondents Grantees

Strengths   

Key Informants



Knowledge of youth development Accessibility, TA and accountability General operating dollars Youth empowerment focus

Weaknesses  





Need to better communicate work Not enough networking opportunities

Interpersonal communication with others Half are unaware of Foundation focus

Strengths as Perceived by Grantees Knowledge of youth development work Grantees appreciated the Foundation’s understanding of youth development work and its challenges. They also appreciated the thoroughness of the grant process and said that going through the process helped them clarify their organizational goals. Grantees also felt that the Foundation genuinely cared about youth engagement. One grantee summed it up this way: I appreciate the Foundation’s support; unlike other funders, it doesn’t have a “secret answer” in mind. They just want to see what our programs will do.

They’re interested in the agency and really supportive. When someone came out to do a site visit, she talked to youth in the program and seemed genuinely interested in what they had to say.

Accessibility, technical assistance, and accountability Grantees noted that the Foundation had high standards for program quality. These standards were supported by their accessibility and willingness to provide technical assistance to support program success. One grantee said simply: “They get it!”

Grantees also liked being held accountable and appreciated the help they received from the Foundation. As one grantee explained:

Rainbow Research, Inc.

43

Youth Engagement

They check that we are doing what we say in the proposals. They hold luncheons to help connect and build a network, to inform us about the work being done for youth in Philadelphia. They interview our kids about how we are doing. If we get stuck, or can't deliver something they help us come up with the plan. It is about learning as we go.

Funding Flexibility: General Operating Support Organizations identified the Foundation’s willingness to provide funding for general operating support, as well as for programming, as a definite strength. By making general operating dollars available and continuing to fund grantees over multiple years, the Foundation helped organizations achieve the stability needed for better programming.

Grantees noted that many nonprofit organizations must pay “hidden costs,” such as transportation, refreshments, even the rental of tables and chairs. These expenses are paid for out of general operating funds. “We need that unrestricted money,” one grantee said. “It can’t just be new, new, new sexy programs all the time because then you can’t sustain ‘em.”

Weaknesses as Perceived by Grantees Networking In general, grantees were extremely positive about the Foundation and the FCC. The few that did identify weaknesses wanted more networking opportunities with other youth-serving organizations. “…what happens beyond money is sometimes just as important as what happens with money,” one grantee said.

Fostering connections to other partners, funders, and individuals doing the same kind of work is a “value-added” that a strong funder could bring to grantees.

Communication about Foundation’s work Several grantees noted that the Foundation could be better at sharing information. “I don’t know enough about [the Foundation’s] work generally to give you an impression overall in the area of youth development, which may mean that their communication out to the community isn’t as strong as it could be,” one grantee said.

Another grantee suggested that the Foundation post a list of best practices online, set up online conferencing, and help develop a coordinated youth or youth development agenda for Philadelphia.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

44

Youth Engagement

Strengths as Perceived by Key Informants Youth Engagement While close to half (45%) of key informants did not feel confident assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Foundation, the majority (84%) felt strongly that the Foundation’s focus on youth engagement was an important one. Some informants stated that it is the responsibility of adults to support youth as they grow into leadership roles. They noted, however, that, at times, it was a difficult task.

Weaknesses as Perceived by Key Informants Lack of knowledge about the Foundation Surprisingly, many key informants knew little about the Philadelphia Foundation. One informant wondered if the Foundation was part of the Knight Foundation. Another thought that the Foundation probably funded “things that are around education, and civic engagement, and youth issues,” but could not be more specific. And a third informant didn’t know that the Foundation had a focus on children and youth. Moving forward as a leader in OST programming, increased visibility and communication about its agenda could better inform current and future collaboration partners.

Too Much Emphasis on Youth Engagement Not all key informants agreed with the Foundation’s focus on youth engagement. “I don’t think it’s all that important,” one informant said. “…I think it would be wonderful to ask a 12-year-old what he thinks about, but do I think that 12-year-old needs to be on my board? I don’t.”

A few informants, while identifying youth engagement as an important strategy, did not believe it was the best or only way to get positive youth outcomes. “You could have [youth engagement] and be really successful,” one informant admitted, but he believed that a focus on academic outcomes would be more fruitful.

Some important potential collaborators took issue with the concept of youth engagement and empowerment. One informant was opposed to groups like Youth for Change, one of the Foundation’s grantees. Calling such groups “destructive,” he said, “They take kids who are in the worst schools and organize them… Let’s organize them [instead] for greater academic rigor, more academic classes…”

Rainbow Research, Inc.

45

Youth Engagement

Poor Communication A few informants in important positions offered examples of poor communication between the Philadelphia Foundation and their own organizations and, from their perspective, the Foundation seemed unwilling to collaborate. A few informants said that in past communication and collaboration had been facilitated by an advisory committee, but it no longer exists.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

46

Youth Engagement

Conclusion Youth Engagement Strategies A majority of FFC grantees are practicing meaningful youth engagement strategies that empower youth. These strategies are increasing the leadership skills, self-confidence, and selfesteem of participants in the funded programs. Through their involvement in FFC funded programs there are youth who have developed stress management skills, and other who are better prepared academically and socially for higher education.

As a result of OST programming funded by FFC many of the youth participants are futureoriented and have had exposure to valuable life experiences outside their communities OST programs have fostered developmental assets know to reduce the likelihood of high-risk behaviors. Without these programs, many youth might otherwise engage in risky behaviors associated with their family circumstances, peer pressure, and/or conditions in their neighborhoods.

Mixed Perceptions of the Foundation’s Role and Institutional Relationships Grantees View the Foundation Positively Funded organizations have a positive view of the Foundation. The Foundation is respected for its focus on youth engagement and its demonstrated knowledge of youth development.

Grantees appreciate the staff’s willingness to visit programs, and provide technical and financial support. Grantees also appreciated being held accountable for results.

Key Informants Vary in Knowledge of and Support for Foundation Efforts Only half of the informants were aware of the Foundation’s youth work. Those who were unfamiliar with it were intrigued with the evaluation process and expressed eagerness to collaborate.

Remaining key informants representing government, education, philanthropy, and business leaders who knew about the Foundation’s work were evenly divided in their perceptions, some favorable and some unfavorable. At issue is what some perceived as a lack of responsiveness on the Foundation’s part to seek out or to accept their input or to address their concerns.

Managers involved in planning, administering and marketing Out of School Time programs were excited by the prospect of a comprehensive data base and its possible applications. They cooperated in the Foundation’s effort to build it and assisted in mapping the city’s OST system.

They freely gave their time and made their OST data available by to Rainbow Research by the deadline in the requested format.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

47

Youth Engagement

Creating a Comprehensive, Searchable, Out of School Time Data Base Rainbow Research successfully mapped the distribution of OST programs serving Philadelphia children and youth between the ages of 12 and 18 to establish how many programs there were, sites at which they were offered and neighborhoods in which they were located. To accomplish this task a single relatively comprehensive data base of approximately 3700 records was compiled, standardized and geo-coded.

OST system managers and staff at non profits, city and state government units and philanthropies generously supported this effort with their time and advice as well as with their digital files and directories. No one refused Rainbow’s data request. All endorsed the concept of a single OST data base that was uniform, up to date and publicly searchable from a directory and or a map. The data base for this project is a step in that direction and an early prototype of what is possible The data provided however, is a point in time snap shot and without updating on a regular basis, quickly obsolete. The exercise identified common data elements almost all collect, as well as inconsistencies in how and when the data is collected and how it is organized. Were service providers, holders of data and funders to agree on supporting a common data base, it would require protocols on e.g. how to describe programs, eligibility and dates and times services are offered. Agreement would also be required on a software platform, updating, maintenance and hosting and distributing the costs. It was evident that interest was high and that everyone who provided data was open to having this conversation.

OST Leadership Void Representatives of Out of School Time programs and key informants whom we interviewed perceived a leadership void in the OST community. Many felt that the OST programming could be more effective given strong and collaborative leadership. Many indicated that the Foundation, by taking a visible leadership role, could help to fill this vacuum by: convening representatives from different sectors including business, city/state government, K-12 education, higher education, non-profit, and funding communities, facilitating collaborative efforts to plan and support OST programming, and; making accurate, comprehensive information about OST offerings, publicly and conveniently accessible For example, many interviewees expressed a sincere interest in discussing the findings of the evaluation report as a first step. The evaluation process exposed many key informants to the youth development work of the Foundation for the first time. Some interviewees also expressed a desire to see a city-wide youth development strategy with shared outcomes. Several

Rainbow Research, Inc.

48

Youth Engagement

mentioned they would like the Foundation to be the bridge between government, communitybased organizations and neighborhoods.

It is for the Foundation to decide whether or not to assume this role in the Philadelphia OST community. On the plus side, it appears that the Foundation is providing exactly what youth say they need: safe spaces, where trusted adults can help them learn the skills needed to make changes meaningful and worthwhile to them and their communities.

On the other hand, youth empowerment has its institutional detractors. Indeed a few key informants feel the Foundation is funding organizations that produce “destructive youth” and “troublemakers.” Working cooperatively with institutions that don’t value or that oppose youth empowerment activities may not be possible without modifying or abandoning the strategy.

Recommendations Based on an extensive data collection process involving over 120 youth and over 50 interviews with key informants and agency executives, Rainbow Research offers the following recommendations: 

Continue to fund programs with high levels of youth engagement and youth empowerment. These programs allow youth to learn the skills that will help protect them from the effects of poverty, negative peer pressure, crime, violence, and nihilism in their neighborhoods.



Continue to fund neighborhood-based programs that promoting community connectedness and pride. While it is good for youth to experience opportunities outside their neighborhood, working for change in their community is valuable outcome of leadership development and youth empowerment. Activism and the belief that one can improve ones community through individual and collective action are antidotes to hopelessness and nihilism – and for some youth even more important than the hope of one day escaping their community and leaving behind their less successful and less fortunate families, siblings and peers.



Examine a larger role for the Foundation in promoting community resiliency.

Community resiliency involves empowerment of families and organizations to rebound from risk factors and trauma. By promoting collaborations across sectors or directly funding organizations that seek to strengthen families and organizations in high poverty areas, the Foundation could reinforce and complement the efforts of FFC grantees through its other funding.



Consider additional roles for the Foundation including: 1) serving as a convener across different sectors that fund and operate OST programs around a comprehensive, searchable public data base 2) become a source of information and referral especially to programs that build capacity through recruitment and training of competent youth

Rainbow Research, Inc.

49

Youth Engagement

workers 3) support research on best practices, and 4) provide technical assistance for organizational development. 

The Foundation may wish to consider hiring a third party to facilitate the agenda and dialog needed to build a community collaborative. Leaders of other institutions might feel more comfortable coming to the table with the foundation as an equal partner vs. the facilitator.



Continue to provide FFC funded staff with technical assistance in youth development and evaluation to ensure program quality and accountability.



Continue to provide general operating support for funded programs. Organizations appreciate the Foundation’s flexibility and willingness to underwrite operating expenses associated with their youth development work that other funders won’t.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

50

Youth Engagement

Appendix I: Key

Informants

Lt. Bryan Anthony, Commanding Officer Police Athletic League of Philadelphia John Chin, Executive Director Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation Jennifer Culhane, Associate Professor Drexel University College of Medicine Ed Desamour, Executive Director Men in Motion in the Community Michael DiBerardinis, Commissioner Parks and Recreation Timene Farlow, Deputy Commissioner Juvenile Justice Services – Philadelphia Dept. of Justice Scott Gordon, CEO Mastery Charter School Stacy Holland, Co-Founder, President, and CEO Philadelphia Youth Network Elizabeth Jaeger, Associate Professor of Psychology St. Joseph’s University Deborah Kahn, Vice President of Community Relations Citizens Bank Susan Kinnevy, Deputy Commissioner Philadelphia Department of Human Services Mellanie Lassiter, Corporate Contributions Manager PECO

Rainbow Research, Inc.

51

Youth Engagement

David Mandell, Associate Director, Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research University of Pennsylvania Sarah Martinez-Helfman, Executive Director Eagles Youth Partnership Marcienne Mattleman, President After School Activities Partnerships Dr. Cheryl Oakman, Director of the Center for Youth Development United Way Marlene Olshan, CEO Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southeast PA Renata Peralta, Interim-Director Philadelphia Youth Commission Andi Perez, Executive Director Youth United for Change Annabella Roig, Vice President Esperanza Nancy Wingo, Executive Director Hamilton Family Foundation Jacob Winterstein, Fundraising and Youth Director Philadelphia Student Union Shelly Yanoff, Executive Director Public Citizens for Children and Youth Gail Yoder, Director of Transitional Services Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services

Rainbow Research, Inc.

52

Youth Engagement

Appendix II: Protocols

Used

Youth Facilitator Training Focus Group Interviewing: An Overview November 2011 Overview of Project  Philadelphia Foundation hired Rainbow Research to conduct youth focus groups  To collect information from youth participants about the FFC funded programs and their benefits  Also, gather information about community needs and issues from youth in Philadelphia Overview of Focus Group Discussions Focus group interviewing is an effective technique for gathering information about why people think and feel the way they do.

It is a unique approach in that it allows for group interaction and greater insight into why certain opinions are held.

It’s much more dynamic than a one-on-one interview.

Focus groups can:  Be used to improve the planning and design of new programs  Provide means of evaluating existing programs  To assess the quality of a program by interviewing participants in the program  To finding out what people think about a certain topic or issue Focus Group Logistics  Length o 1 to 1.5 hours (Lunch/Dinner and discussion) o 30 minutes to debrief with Rainbow staff  Size o For FFC focus group we will have 8-10 per group  Sample o Organizational focus group – 8 programs funded by Philadelphia Foundation’s FFC o Emerging Needs focus group – 5 programs, youth not represented in FFC programs  Typically, focus groups range on the order 1 to 1½ hours. Typically, it will take “no more than 1½ hours” – so they are prepared to stay the duration.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

53

Youth Engagement

 

If the focus group participants are children or youth, you will probably need to plan on shorter sessions.

Typically, 8-12 per group. For this focus group we will have 8-10 and they will be either all male or all female.

Primary Responsibilities of the Facilitator  Ask questions, probe and seek examples  Get all participants to share their viewpoints  Keep the discussion on track o Know when to probe further o Know when to move on Qualities of a Skillful Facilitator  Adequate knowledge of topic o Show some sense of curiosity about the topic and the participants  Shows empathy o If participants sense apathy or disinterest, they will turn off  Eager to listen o Must be attentive and sensitive in listening to participant viewpoints.

(People will shut down if they do not feel their viewpoints are heard or respected)  Creates a warm and friendly environment  Alert and free of distraction  Is able to handle criticism  Demonstrates respect for participants o Must truly believe that participants have wisdom no matter what their level of education, experience, or background Tips for Facilitator  Be very familiar with the questions  Review purpose and ask if anything has been missed  Jot down key terms or questions on a flip chart  At the end, summarize the most important themes  Stay involved for the analysis (preferable but not necessary) - Debriefing Skills Used in Facilitation  Encourage participants to express different points of view  Two essential techniques: o The 5-second pause This technique is most often used after a participant comment. New facilitators tend to speed through the questions and talk too much.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

54

Youth Engagement

Be sure to pause and let people talk, give them extra time. Combine the pause with eye contact.



o The probe People often give vague comments that could have many meanings, or they may say, “I agree.” When this occurs, try using probes to get more information.

It’s best to use the probe early in the interview to communicate the importance of precision in responses, and then use it sparingly in later discussion.  “Would you explain further?”  “Would you give me an example of what you mean?”  “Would you say more?”  “Is there anything else?”  “Please describe what you mean.”

Controlling group dynamics o The dominant participant o The rambling participant o The silent participant o The reluctant group o When things get out of control

Temptations to Avoid as a Facilitator  Asking a question in more than one way  Voicing one’s personal opinion  Repeating back exactly what is heard  Responding to participant comments o Head nodding o Short verbal responses to avoid:  “That’s good”  “Correct”  “I agree” Respondent Distress  At any time, if the study participant is upset: o Acknowledge the participant’s feelings o Make sure he/she is all right o Offer the respondent a creak if they would like time out to compose themselves

Rainbow Research, Inc.

55

Youth Engagement

o Do not suggest a break because you, the interviewer, are uncomfortable with a strong display of emotion o Offer to share story with your supervisor o Offer the respondent a telephone number they can call to follow up Getting Ready for the Unexpected  Nobody shows up  Only a few attend  The meeting place is inadequate  The group doesn’t want to talk  One person is dominant or overly chatty  One person is quiet  An unexpected visitor shows up  Hazardous weather occurs  When in need of clarification always refer to Rainbow Research staff Note-taker  The facilitator will invite the note-taker to ask any questions for clarification  Review purpose and ask if anything has been missed  Jot down key terms or questions on a flip chart  At the end, summarize the most important themes  Note-taker distributes post-group (exit) surveys  Facilitator thanks participants and mentions incentive  Note-taker distributes incentive as participants sign receipt  As part of a closing question, the facilitator will usually invite the note-taker to ask any clarifying questions and to provide a verbal summary.  The summaries of the note-takers should be no more than 2 minutes. Include notable phrases that were made during the group. You do not NEED to summarize all the questions – only those that are most important.  Focus on things that stood out for you.  You can invite additions or corrections from the group – sometimes this summary really yields lots of extra information.  At the end of the group, note-taker could also distribute surveys (if not done at beginning) and incentives.

About Focus Group Questions  Good questions are the heart of the focus group  Focus group questions serve distinct purposes and were carefully selected with thoughtful planning o Do not replace them Rainbow Research, Inc.

56

Youth Engagement

o Do not re-word them Sequence of Questions in a Focus Group  Stage 1 o Introduction o Purpose o Ground rules  Stage 2 o Ice breaker questions  Stage 3-4 o Opening questions o Transition questions  Stage 4-5 o Key questions o Ending questions Beginning the Discussion    

Welcome Overview of the topic Ground rules First question (“ice breaker”)

Introductory Questions  “Round robin” type question – every goes around the table and answers  Participants should be able to answer quickly  Designed to initiate communication, invite participation  Example: “Tell us your name and how old are you”, “What is your favorite activity or sport”, “What are you good at” Opening Questions  Introduces the general topic of discussion  Provides an opportunity for participants to reflect on past experiences and other connection with the overall topic  Intended to foster interaction among the participants  Example: “What do you like about your program or community?”

Transition Questions  Designed to move the conversation into key questions that relate to the core purpose of the focus group

Rainbow Research, Inc.

57

Youth Engagement

 

At this point, participants are becoming aware of how others view the topic Example: “What are you learning from your program or community?”

Key Questions  Questions that are core to the purpose of the focus group  Usually the first set of questions to be developed  Require the greatest attention in the analysis  Example: “What is needed to make your community and/or program better?”

Ending Questions  Brings closure to the discussion  Enables participants to reflect on previous comments o All things considered question o Summary question o Final question

Rainbow Research, Inc.

58

Youth Engagement

Youth Focus Groups Philadelphia Foundation’s Fund for Children (FFC) Emerging Needs Youth Focus group Discussion Guide Stage I: Welcome and Introductions FACILITATOR: (Estimated total time: 10 minutes) Hi, my name is _______. I would like to welcome you and thank you for taking the time to participate in today’s focus group. We also have with us here [Lola/Kataney] who will be taking notes and assisting me in today’s focus group.

FACILITATOR: We are here today to have a group discussion about some of the things you do and what you would like to do in your communities. What are the concerns or problems that you have recognized? Also, what ideas do you have to help create a better community for you and those around you?

Your participation in today’s focus group is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, know that your identity and everything you say will be kept confidential.

Rainbow’s report will not use any name or any other information that could identify you.

FACILITATOR: To make sure you all feel comfortable sharing your thoughts, we have a few simple ground rules for you to follow: 1. Please be respectful of one another – you can disagree with others’ ideas but do so respectfully, and, please don’t interrupt when someone else is talking.

2. Please turn off your cell phone...

3. Feel free to speak up; there is no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your opinions and ideas, whatever they may be.

4. What you say here stays here – please don’t discuss outside of this room what you hear others say or talk about.

FACILITATOR: As your focus group facilitator, my role is:  To ask questions and keep the conversation moving so we get through as many of them as we can;  To make sure everyone who has something to say gets their chance to speak As a note taker, [Kataney’s] role is:  To take notes of the discussion and operate the recorder;

Rainbow Research, Inc.

59

Youth Engagement

 

To keep track of time so we can cover as many questions as we can; To let me know if there are participants who haven’t had a chance to speak.

The discussion will last about an hour. At the completion of today’s discussion, we will distribute $20 cash to each of you as a thank you for your participation. If you need to use the restroom at any time during our discussion, please feel free to do so [Give directions to restrooms] Are there any questions before we begin?

One last thing: we will be recording today’s discussion. The recording will be sent to a transcription service to be transcribed. The transcript will not identify who said what.

The transcript will help ensure we do not miss any important information because the note taker can’t write everything down. The recording will be destroyed at the end of the study.

Does anyone object to a recording of our discussion? [NOTETAKER: Turn recorder on.

If one person objects, do not record.]

Stage II: Ice-Breaking Activity (Estimated total time: 10 minutes) Use this stage to break the ice. Participants will get more acquainted with each other so that they will start to feel comfortable and begin to focus on the context and issues of concern. This is the time to get everyone talking and feeling included.

First, I’d like to go around the table and have each of you tell us your first name, how old are you, and something that you are good at or enjoy doing.

PAUSE AND WAIT FOR PARTICIPANTS TO COMPLETE THEIR EXERCISE. Stage III: Community Involvement (Estimated total time: 10 minutes) 1. How did you get involved in this program? Tell me about the services or resources offered in this program?

2.

Are there any programs that you participate in or want to participate in? Talk more about that?

3.

What could a program offer that can help you become a better adult?

4. What kinds of things are you learning from your communities, family or peers? 

Who or what influences you?

Stage IV: Emerging Needs in the Community (Estimated Total time: 20 minutes)

Rainbow Research, Inc.

60

Youth Engagement

Now let’s talk about your communities……

Group Activity: 5.

Tell us what neighborhood you live in? How do you define community?

6. (Draw a picture or write a poem to describe your community/neighborhood) Probe: What do you like or don’t like about it?

7. What do you believe is needed to make your community a better one?

Probe: What do you need from your community?  What steps should be taken to make these changes 8. Do you consider yourself a valuable member of society? Why or why not?

Probe: Do you feel a part of your community? If so, give us a recent example of when you felt a part of your community 9.

What issues do you see affecting your community now? In the next 5-10 years?

10. If you could create community opportunities for kids your age to keep them engaged and interested, what would these be?

11. There has been a lot of talk about the curfew for youth in Philadelphia and flash mobs.

What are your thoughts about each of these issues?

Probe: How do you think that adults view young people like yourselves?

Stage V: Wrap-up/ Conclusion Today, we talked about your involvement in the communities and ways it can be improved. Is there anything else you would like to say that we haven’t already covered? Thank you everyone for your participation. This is an excellent group and the information you provided is very helpful. If you have any additional comments or thoughts you’d like to share, please talk to [Lola].

We have a brief survey for you. Please remain seated while you’re answering it. When you’re done, give it to [Kataney].

Notetaker turns off recorder and is attuned to post focus group conversations. Youth facilitator debriefs with Kataney or Susan at the end regarding participation levels, persons who dominated or were silent, unusual incidents, distractions, or major points of agreement/disagreement and writes information down on Debrief Form.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

61

Youth Engagement

Philadelphia Foundation’s Fund for Children (FFC) Organizational Youth Focus group Discussion Guide Stage I: Welcome and Introductions FACILITATOR: (Estimated total time: 10 minutes) Hi, my name is _______. I would like to welcome you and thank you for taking the time to participate in today’s focus group. We also have with us here [Susan/Kataney] who will be taking notes and assisting me in today’s focus group.

FACILITATOR: We are here today to have a group discussion about what you like and don’t like about (Name of program). I would also like to hear about some of the things you do and what are you learning from the activities. What ideas do you have to help make the program better and how are you involved in the planning and designing of the activities?

Your participation in today’s focus group is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, know that your identity and everything you say will be kept confidential.

Rainbow’s report will not use any name or any other information that could identify you.

FACILITATOR: To make sure you all feel comfortable sharing your thoughts, we have a few simple ground rules for you to follow: 5. Please be respectful of one another – you can disagree with others’ ideas but do so respectfully, and, please don’t interrupt when someone else is talking.

6. Please turn off your cell phone...

7. Feel free to speak up; there is no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your opinions and ideas, whatever they may be.

8. What you say here stays here – please don’t discuss outside of this room what you hear others say or talk about.

FACILITATOR: As your focus group facilitator, my role is:  To ask questions and keep the conversation moving so we get through as many of them as we can;  To make sure everyone who has something to say gets their chance to speak As a note taker, [Kataney’s] role is:  To take notes of the discussion and operate the recorder;  To keep track of time so we can cover as many questions as we can;  To let me know if there are participants who haven’t had a chance to speak.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

62

Youth Engagement

The discussion will last about an hour. At the completion of today’s discussion, we will distribute $20 cash to each of you as a thank you for your participation. If you need to use the restroom at any time during our discussion, please feel free to do so [Give directions to restrooms] Are there any questions before we begin?

One last thing: we will be recording today’s discussion. The recording will be sent to a transcription service to be transcribed. The transcript will not identify who said what.

The transcript will help ensure we do not miss any important information because the note taker can’t write everything down. The recording will be destroyed at the end of the study.

Does anyone object to a recording of our discussion? [NOTETAKER: Turn recorder on.

If one person objects, do not record.]

Stage II: Warm-Up Exercise: (Estimated total time: 10 minutes) Use this stage to break the ice. Participants will get more acquainted with each other so that they will start to feel comfortable and begin to focus on the context and issues of concern. This is the time to get everyone talking and feeling included.

1. First, I’d like to go around the table and have each of you tell me your first name and how old are you.

2. Let’s go around the table again and tell me what is your favorite activity, sport or game you enjoy doing with your friends and family.

PAUSE AND WAIT FOR PARTICIPANTS TO COMPLETE THEIR EXERCISE. Stage III: About the Program (Estimated total time: 10 minutes) 3.

How did you hear about (Name of program)?

Probe: What made you want to check it out?

4. What is your favorite thing about this program?

Probe: What makes you want to come back?

5. What kinds of activities do you participate in?

Probe: Tell me about a typical afternoon when you come here.

Stage IV: Youth Participation in the Program (Estimated total time: 10 minutes)

Rainbow Research, Inc.

63

Youth Engagement

Next, I would like to know more about your participation in program activities. Please jump in when you have something to add.

6. What kinds of things are you learning in this program?

7. What are the benefits of participating in the activities?

8. If you could change anything about the program, what will it be and what will You do to make it better?

Stage V: Youth Engagement (Estimated total time: 20 minutes) 9. Do you get to plan the activities you do in this program? If so, tell me about the activity you got to plan?

10. Who do you talk to when you have ideas about things you want to do?

11. When you learn things or develop new skills from this program, how do you apply it in your everyday life?

12. Do you consider yourself a valuable member of this program? Why or why not?

13. If there is one thing you would change about your community what would it be?

14. What issues do you see affecting your community in the future?  If you could create community opportunities for kids your age to keep them engaged and interested, what would it be?

Stage VI: Wrap-up/ Conclusion Today, we talked about your participation in (Name of program) and the ways in which you are benefiting from this program. Is there anything else you would like to say that we haven’t already covered? Thank you everyone for your participation. This is an excellent group and the information you provided is very helpful. If you have any additional comments or thoughts you’d like to share, please talk to [Kataney/Susan].

We have a brief survey for you. Please remain seated while you’re answering it. When you’re done, give it to [Kataney/Susan].

Note taker turns off recorder and is attuned to post focus group conversations. Youth facilitator debriefs with Kataney or Susan at the end regarding participation levels, persons who dominated or were silent, unusual incidents, distractions, or major points of agreement/disagreement and writes information down on Debrief Form.

Organizational Staff Interviews Philadelphia Foundation Fund for Children (FFC) Rainbow Research, Inc.

64

Youth Engagement

Staff Telephone Interview Rev 12-15-2011 INTRODUCTION: Hello, my name is _________ and I’m with Rainbow Research in Minneapolis. I’m calling about the Philadelphia Foundation interview, which we have scheduled for today. Is now a good time?

That’s great. I gave you some background about these interviews in the email I sent you, but let me go over the purpose of the study briefly. Rainbow Research is working with the Philadelphia Foundation Fund for Children to determine the impact of its grant making strategy. The Foundation wants to know how well the Fund for Children or FFC has achieved its goals, and to get some recommendations on how it can help further enhance the quality of life of children and youth in Philadelphia. We are talking to staff of youth programs that have received funds from FFC. The interview will take 30-45 minutes depending on your responses.

Please know that your responses will be kept confidential. Rainbow Research will collect and analyze the data, and the Philadelphia Foundation will see only a summary of the results. The report might include some quotes but we will not use any names.

Before we begin, I would like to ask your permission to record our conversation. I will be taking notes, but in case I cannot catch everything you say I will be able to listen to the recording later. Are you okay with this?

I. Program Description 1. First, I’d like to ask you to describe the work that FFC supported. a. Who do you serve in the program? b. Where are you based; that is, where do you conduct most of your activities?

Prompt: Community, School, Both, Other? c. What youth-related issues does your program address?

Prompt: For example: Economic Well-being, Education, Health, Safety, Immigrants & Refugees, Juvenile Justice, Environmental Justice, Other d. What types of services do you offer?

Rainbow Research, Inc.

65

Youth Engagement

Interviewer: Allow them to describe the services in their own words, and then check the categories they fall under when you enter the data in SurveyMonkey. a. Life Skills i. Arts education b. Drop-in j. Faith-based c. Mentoring k. Job Skills d. Recreation l. Juvenile Justice e. Community Service m. Substance Abuse Prev & Interv f. Service Learning n. Individual & Group Counseling g. Camp o. Other, specify h. Tutoring

Rainbow Research, Inc.

66

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

d1. Could you describe these services?

2. Please describe your youth participation/engagement model. For this we specifically want to know the level of engagement of your youth relative to adults in things like: designing the program; determining the goals and objectives; implementing the activities, community outreach, or other key decision making tasks.

Interviewers: Please probe for enough information that will allow us to determine the youth engagement model of this program as described below: a. Youth-driven – program is predominantly run by youth but the sponsoring organization is predominantly run by adults

b. Youth-led – organization and program are governed by young people c. Intergenerational – adults and youth work side by side on broader community issues, but youth do the bulk of their work in youth-only setting (e.g., work with other youth on advocacy projects championing issues that affect both adults and youth, e.g., homelessness or health care)

I would like to ask you about the benefits of your program to young people, your agency or organization, and the community at large. Let’s start with children and youth.

II. Benefits to Children and Youth 3. How have youth benefited from their participation in your FFC funded program?

4. How do you know that the youth have benefited in the ways you described?

Probe: Do you collect qualitative or quantitative data to show these benefits? What data?

III. Benefits to Agency 5. In what ways and to what extent has the FFC funding built or increased your agency’s capacity to engage youth in decision-making roles that create positive community change?

Probe: Could you give specific examples? For example, do they participate in governing boards, leadership teams, planning committees, or advisory groups? How do they contribute?

6. In what ways and to what extent has the FFC funding built or increased your agency’s capacity to start a new program, expand an existing program, or reach new populations you didn’t serve before?

Rainbow Research, Inc.

67

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

7. In what ways and to what extent has the FFC funding built or increased your agency’s capacity to partner, network, or collaborate with other agencies?

Probe: What partnerships, networks, or collaborations have you joined or formed in doing your FFC-funded youth work?

8. In what ways and to what extent has the FFC funding built or increased your agency’s capacity to leverage additional funds from other sources?

8a. What about leveraging in-kind resources from other sources?

9. In what ways and to what extent has the FFC funding built or increased your agency’s capacity to achieve sustainability?

Probe: How has it helped you to continue what you’ve been doing even if FFC funding has ended or ends?

10. In what ways and to what extent has the FFC funding built or increased your agency’s capacity to develop best, promising, or emerging practices?

Prompt: What we’d like to know is whether the FFC funding allowed you to further develop certain strategies or approaches that you have found to be effective, or allowed you to adapt known best practices to your target population.

10a. [IF THEY SAID YES] Could you tell me more about these best, promising, or emerging practices that have surfaced from your FFC-funded youth work?

[Make sure they identify which are best, promising, or emerging] 10b. [IF THEY SAID YES] How are they being documented or shared?

Prompt: For example, have you written an article or a report about these practices, presented them at a conference, or shared them at a community event?

Interviewers: For your reference, the types of practices are described below.

Best practices - practices for which original data have been collected to determine their effectiveness; the research utilizes scientifically based rigorous research designs.

Promising practices - practices for which original data have been collected, though insufficient, to determine their effectiveness.

Emerging practices - practices that are not based on research or theory and on which original data have not been collected, but for which anecdotal evidence and professional wisdom exists.

IV. Benefits to Community

Rainbow Research, Inc.

68

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

11. How has the community benefited from the work that your program and other FFC-funded programs are doing?

V. Issues and Trends 12. What are 3-5 most important issues facing the children and youth of Philadelphia today?

Why do you see these as important?

13. What strategies have you or others successfully used to address the issues you identified?

14. What needs of children and youth in Philadelphia are not currently being served or addressed by existing programs?

15. How do you see the youth development field evolving? What trends, issues, and opportunities do you see emerging in the next 3-5 years?

VI. Wrap-Up 16. Please give us your candid views on FFC’s performance, its strengths and weaknesses, as a funder and an ally in youth work.

17. What advice would you give FFC and other funders about their youth grant making programs?

18. Those are all my questions. Is there anything else you would like to say about FFC or how your program has impacted the children and youth of Philadelphia?

Thank you very much for your time. The information you provided is very helpful.

Are you interested in what we find out from this evaluation? An Executive Summary of the report will be available probably in mid-2012.

Write email if interested in report: _________________________________________

Key Informant Interviews Philadelphia Foundation Fund for Children (FFC) Key Informant Interviews Introduction Rainbow Research is working with the Philadelphia Foundation Fund for Children to determine the impact of its grant making strategy. The Foundation wants to know how well the Fund for Children or FFC has achieved its goals, and to get some Rainbow Research, Inc.

69

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

recommendations on how it can help further enhance the quality of life of children and youth in Philadelphia. We are talking to key informants that our evaluation team and the Philadelphia Foundation have identified that are knowledgeable of current and emerging issues regarding Philadelphia youth. The interview will take 45-60 minutes depending on your responses.

Please know that your responses will be kept confidential. Rainbow Research will collect and analyze the data, and the Philadelphia Foundation will see only a summary of the results. The report might include some quotes but we will not use any names.

Before we begin, I would like to ask your permission to record our conversation. I will be taking notes, but in case I cannot catch everything you say I will be able to listen to the recording later. Are you okay with this?

Opening 1. Please describe your current work at your organization and how it impacts youth ages 12-18 in the city of Philadelphia.

2. Please describe your association and history with FFC, if any.

Current and Emerging Issues 3. What are 3-5 most important issues facing the children and youth of Philadelphia today? Why do you see these as important?

4. To your knowledge, what strategies have been most effective in addressing the issues you identified?

5. What needs of children and youth in Philadelphia are not currently being served or addressed by existing programs?

6. How do you see the youth development field evolving? What trends, issues, and opportunities do you see emerging in the next 3-5 years?

Programming 7. In your view, what existing children and youth programs that have been successful and effective could use more financial support?

Rainbow Research, Inc.

70

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

8. In your view, what new, innovative and exciting programs that, while not fully developed, funders should be turning their attention to?

9. What have youth programs done for the city of Philadelphia? What are the benefits to children and youth that participate in them, to agencies that implement them, and to communities that host them?

Philadelphia Foundation 10. Please give us your candid views on FFC’s performance, its strengths and weaknesses, as a funder and an ally in youth work.

11. In the last few years the Philadelphia Foundation has increased its emphasis on greater youth engagement. Not just giving their input to the program but more of things like youth making key decisions, defining the key issues and agenda, or conducting research. To what extent do you see this approach as important in youth programming? What other issues do you see as important for programs to emphasize for youth?

12. What advice would you give FFC and other funders about their youth grant making programs?

13. Is there anything else you would like to say about any of the issues we covered today?

Rainbow Research, Inc.

71

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

Bibliography “An Emerging Model for Working with Youth.” Occasional Papers on Youth Organizing No. 1. Listen, Inc. 2000.

Brown, Shante. “School District of Philadelphia’s Budget Deficit…Who is to Blame?”

Examiner, 11 April 2011. Web. 19 March 2012.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment in the Philadelphia Area by County – December 2011. U.S. Department of Labor. Online database. 18 March 2012.

Checkoway, B., E. Dobbie, and K. Richards-Schuster. “The Wingspread Symposium: Involving Young People in Community Evaluation Research.” CYD Journal, 4(1), 2003: 7-11.

Collins, Kathryn, Kay Connors, Sarah Davis, April Donohue, Erica Goldblatt, Anna Hayward, Laurel Kiser, Fred Strieder, and Elizabeth Thompson. “Understanding the Impact of Trauma and Urban Poverty on Family Systems: Risks, Resilience and Interventions.” Family-Informed Trauma Treatment Center, 2010.

“Crime Maps & Stats.” Philadelphia Police Department. City of Philadelphia. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.

Davies, W.H., and D.J. Flannery. “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in Children and Adolescents Exposed to Violence.” Pediatric Clinics of North America 2: 341-353.

Eichel, Larry, and Cliff Zukin. “Philadelphia Quality of Life Survey: Residents See Crime as Top Problem Facing Philadelphia.” Philadelphia Research Initiative.

February 25, 2009.

Engel, Patricia, S. Castle, and P. Menson “Child Development: Vulnerability and Resilience”. Social Science and Medicine. 1996 Sep: 43(5): 621-35.

“Enrollment Figures.” CHIP Pennsylvania’s Children’s Health Insurance Program. PA Insurance Department. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.

“Estimating the Percentage of Students Income-Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch.” The Reinvestment Fund for the School District of Philadelphia. Aug, 2007.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

72

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

“Facts on Homelessness.” Project H.O.M.E. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.

Flores-Sabo, Kim. Youth Participatory Evaluation. San Francisco: Josey Bass, 2008. Print.

Gill, Brian. “Takeover Overtaken: Public Management of Philadelphia Schools Leaves Private Management Behind in Math”. Rand Review 31.1 (Spring 2007).

Graham, Kristen A., and Dylan Purcell. “‘Compelling’ Evidence of Cheating in Many Phila. Schools.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 March 2012. Web. 16 March 2012.

Hart, Roger A. “Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship.” United Nations Children’s Fund. Innocenti Essays No.4 (1992).

Hoye, Sarah. “A Bloody Start to the Year for Philadelphia.” CNN, 11 February 2012.

Web. 11 Feb. 2012.

Jones, K., and D. Perkins. “Youth and Adult Perceptions of Their Relationships Within Community-based Youth Programs,” Youth and Society 38.1. 2006: 90-109.

Larson, Reed, Kathrin Walker, and Nickki Pearce “A Comparison of Youth-Driven and Adult-Driven Programs: Balancing Inputs from Youth and Adults”. Journal of Community Psychology 33.1 (2005): 57-74.

“Lessons in Leadership: How Young People Change Their Communities and Themselves”. Innovation Center. Executive Summary: December 2003.

London, J., Zimmerman, K., & Erbstein N. “Youth–led Research, Evaluation, and Planning as Youth, Organizational, and Community Development.” Youth Participatory Evaluation: A field in the making. New Directions in Evaluation, 98. San Francisco: Josey Bass, 2003.

Neild, Ruth Curran. “Understanding Graduation and Dropout Rates” Philadelphia Public School Notebook 15.3 (Spring, 2008). Web. 18 March 2012.

Pfefferbaum, Betty J., Dori B. Reisman, Rose L. Pfefferbaum, Richard W. Klomp and Robin H. Garwich Handbook of Injury and Violence Prevention “Building Resilience to Mass Trauma Events” 2007: 347-358.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

73

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

Philadelphia In Focus: A Profile from Census 2000. Washington: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2003.

“Poverty in Philadelphia and its Schools: Facts and Figures.” Philadelphia Public School Notebook 18.3 (December 2010). Web. 19 Feb. 2012.

Pynoos, R. S., A.M. Steinberg, and J.C. Piacentini. “A Developmental Psychopathology Model of Childhood Traumatic Stress and Intersection with Anxiety Disorders.”

Biological Psychiatry, 46: 1542-1554.

Samuels, Christina. “Ackerman Out as Philadelphia Schools Leader.” Education Week, 22 Aug. 2011. Web. 17 March 2012.

Shaw, Julie. “In Philly, Higher Poverty, Lower Income.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 18 March 2012.

Shields, Jeff. “Homeless Will Get Priority for 500 PHA Units.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 30 July 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.

Sullivan, T.K. Youth Engagement More Than a Method: A Way of Life for Healthy Youth and Community Development. Center for Youth Development, University of Minnesota Extension. 2009.

Swanson, Christopher B. “Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Education Gap.” Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. April 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 American Community Survey. Online database. 22 Feb. 2012.

Useem, E., R. Offenberg, and E. Farley. “Closing the Teacher Quality Gap in Philadelphia: New Hope and Old Hurdles.” Research for Action, 2007.

Volk, Steve. “Top 10 Drug Corners.” Philadelphia Weekly, 2 May 2007. Web. 18 March 2012.

Volk, Steve. “The Top Ten Drug Corners in the City of Brotherly Love 2011.” Phawker, 23 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 March 2012.

Walker, Kathrin, and Reed Larson. “Life on the Ground: Balancing Youth Ownership with Adult Input.” The Evaluation Exchange. Harvard Family Research Project: Harvard Graduate School of Education. X.1( Spring 2004).

Rainbow Research, Inc.

74

In Search of Youth Engagement - Draft

Zeldin, Shepard, Reed Larson, Linda Camino, and Cailin O’Connor. “Intergenerational Relationships and Partnerships in Community Programs: Purpose, Practice, and Directions for Research.” Journal of Community Psychology 33.1 (2005): 1-10.

“Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia: Denying Educational Opportunities and Creating a Pathway to Prison.” Youth United for Change and Advancement Project, Jan. 2011.

Rainbow Research, Inc.

75