Nation Guard Youth Challenge Program - Article Example

RUNNING HEAD: SINGLE DESIGN Single design Nation Guard Youth Challenge Program Sociology Nation Guard Youth Challenge Program The National Guard Bureau in the U.S. Department of Defense developed the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program (ChalleNGe) which operates in more than half of the states in the country. Challenge is an intensive residential program that aims to reclaim the lives of youths at risk who have dropped out of high school and its aim is to give them the skills and values to succeed as adults. It was launched in 1993 and over 100,000 young people have completed the program. The participants in the programme can be of either gender around the age of 16 to 18 years of age. The program is a 17 month long intensive and engaging divided into three phases: a two-week Pre-ChalleNGe Phase, 20-week Residential Phase and a one-year Post-Residential Phase. The first phase involves a demanding orientation and assessment period and the place of residence for the first two phases is within a military base. In the Residential Phase, the curriculum’s focus is on eight core components of positive youth development among which include; leadership/fellowship, responsible citizenship or service to community. At the end of the Residential Phase, participants work with staff to arrange post-residential placement, such as employment, education, or military service. When the whole programme is almost over, the participants return to their families and receive structured mentoring from qualified mentors identified by themselves within their own community. Despite the program being described as "quasi-military," people’s participation is voluntary, and there are no requirements for military service during the program or afterward (Millenky et al., 2011). Evaluation Methods ChalleNGe was evaluated using a randomized controlled research design. The vacancies available for the applicants were limited compared to the number of applicants who applied. It was therefore decided to choose the successful applicants through random selection via lottery picking. Those who were unlucky were assigned to a control group while those who were lucky enough to be picked were assigned to an intervention group which was offered admission to ChalleNGE. The programme sites were however not selected by random. These sites were characterized by their ability to ensure stable staffing and they had a tendancy to receive more applications to participate rather than the spaces available. The evaluation process happened in the following order: the first wave follow-up surveys were administered an average of nine months after the participants had entered the study, shortly after the treatment group had completed the Residential Phase and the response rate was found to be 85 percent (Bloom et al., 2009). The second wave follow-up surveys were administered approximately 21 months after the participants entered the study and they included evaluation of education outcomes, employment outcomes, health outcomes and social outcomes. The response rate for this follow-up was 79 percent (Millenky et al., 2010). The third wave follow-up surveys were conducted three years after program enrollment of which the participants had completed more than one year after the Post-Residential Phase. The response rate for this survey was 78 percent. (Millenky et al., 2011). Key Evaluation Findings: First wave (Bloom et al., 2009) Nine months after the participants entered the study, the treatment group was seen to have positive feedback compared to the control group that was not admitted. The treatment group was likely to have obtained a high school diploma compared to the control group. However, the control group was seen to be more likely to enroll back to high school compared to the treatment group with the only downside being that most of the participants in the control group would drop out. The treatment group (30.9 percent) was also significantly more likely than the control group (7.5 percent) to have earned a General Education Development certificate (GED). The treatment group (51.2 percent) was significantly more likely than the control group (42.1 percent) to be employed and to be taking college courses (10.9 percent versus 2.7 percent) the treatment group was also observed to be less likely to be arrested, the participants reported their health reports to be very ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ and they also reported high self-efficacy and social adjustment scores compared to those in the control group. Second wave (Millenky et al., 2010) The odds for success within the ChalleNGE group compared to that of the control group just like in the first wave results are seen to be higher. The second wave happened twenty-one months subsequent to enrollment in the study. ChalleNGe participants were significantly more likely than their control group counterparts to have earned a high school diploma or GED and to have earned college credit or received vocational training. when it came to employment, majority of the participants were currently working relative to the control group while a greater proportion were working full time of which the participants were receiving an hourly wage of $8 to over $10. The research done showed no participant being arrested however it acknowledged the fact that the control group had a higher percentage of being arrested compared to the challenge participants. ChalleNGe participants were equally as likely as the control group to report any violent incidents in the past year, but the average number of violent incidents was lower in the ChalleNGe group compared with the control group. There also seemed to be no variation between the two groups when it came to matters such as health, sexual activity, or drug use outcomes with the exception of binge drinking. The ChalleNGE group members also mostly lived independent of their guardians in their own apartments. On questions relating to life-coping and leadership, there were no significant variations too. However, the ChalleNGe ChalleNGe group showed positive impacts relative to the control group on the following measures: better anger management and temper control. Third wave (Millenky et al., 2011) At three years subsequent to enrollment in the program, a range of positive outcomes related to academic performance and employment were observed with regard to performance in school achievement i.e. through college and high school. The ChalleNGE group still was more successful in their education credentials went to the level of earning degrees. The participants from the ChalleNGE group also kept their jobs for a longer period of time and most of them also were either currently in employment. Their earnings compared to the control group participants were also higher. There were no changes in the living arrangements from the findings found in the second wave of research when it came to the ChalleNGE group; they lived in their own house. No differences were noted when it came to living arrangements and marital status when it came to comparing both groups. ChalleNGe participants reported more collective civic efficacy than the control group where they were seen to engage with other members of the community when it came to effective addressing of the community’s problems. The study evaluated a range of health and lifestyle-related outcomes and for several of these outcomes, the ChalleNGe group appeared to be doing statistically significantly worse and there seemed to be no explanation for this trend that the researchers could identify. The ChalleNGE group seemed to be likely more overweight than their counterparts but there were no significant differences when it came to other physical and psychological health issues. There was no significant differences when it came to matters of being sexually active among the two group however when it came to the ChalleNGE group’s frequency in reporting about the use of birth control they seemed less likely to report. The ChalleNGE group also frequently reported the use of drugs such as alcohol and marijuana compared to the control group but there seemed to be no variations when it came to other drugs. There were no differences when it came to being charged or convicted of a crime, or self-reported incidents of delinquency and this also applied to matters concerning leadership and life-coping skills. Probable Implementers This program was and continues to be implemented by various states under a Master Cooperative Agreement with the National Guard Bureau. Funding The federal government and the state to an amount of up to $ 14,000 fund each participant. The federal government pays up to 75 percent of the cost, and the states pay the remaining amount. Programs typically assemble the state share of the funding from a variety of sources, including in-kind funding. The state funding is done through a variety of community initiatives e.g. the schools freely providing the services of their teachers and a variety of NGO s making contributions. Implementation Detail Program Design The basic structure of the ChalleNGe program is the same in all the states although there is also room for considerable variations when it comes to switching up the structure of the program if a particular state feels the need to make any alterations. Most states operate a single "100-bed" ChalleNGe program, serving a total of about 200 participants per year in two class cycles which run in the different halves within the year. Orientation to the program rules and expectations which include; learn military bearing, discipline, and teamwork; and begin physical fitness training in the first two weeks of the Pre-Challenge phase. The Residential Phase runs for 20 weeks and its environment is quasi-military where the participants are called ‘cadets’ and are divided into platoons and squads, where they live in barracks they have a standard uniform that they wear and their hair is cut short. Staff closely supervises the cadets at all times and above all they are expected to behave in a military type of fashion observing the rules and discipline at all times. The successful cadets move to the next phase called the Residential Phase which takes one year during which they receive structured mentoring from a mentor who is nominated by the cadet and screened and trained by the program staff. Staffing A Programme Director is the highest in command and his role is to oversee all elements of the program and focuses particularly on external matters, such as marketing, fundraising, and government and community relations. They are the programs link with the outside environment and their communications contact. The following in the chain in command is the Program Deputy Director charged with the role of overseeing all internal affairs, including program management, human resources, and cadet affairs. The cadre or team leaders directly supervise all daily activities of the cadets and make sure they monitor the cadets’ welfare. Academic instructors teach GED courses and also give lessons on responsible citizenship and job skills. There are also counselors who are in charge of the cadet’s conduct psychological counseling. They also are responsible for career counseling and recruitment. There are also placement, and mentoring (RPM) coordinators who are responsible for recruiting and screening applicants during the Post-Residential Phase. Most administrative staff is military veterans, military retirees, or members of the National Guard and reserves. Academic instructors and counselors are hired through various channels, such as the local school district, community colleges, or direct hiring. Curriculum During the Residential Phase, academic instructors teach the GED subject courses, including math, science, writing and language arts, and computer skills but these may vary depending on the state. Issues to Consider This program received a "proven" rating. The research, conducted during 2005-2007, was implemented according to rigorous design standards and included a treatment group of 2,320 participants and a comparison group of 754 participants. The evaluation used was a randomized controlled trial. Several issues regarding the study sample were noted. First, the study sites were not chosen randomly but instead had stable staffing and tended to have more applicants than they could serve. This therefore shows that these studies do not represent the overall impact of ChalleNGe nationally but rather the impact of selected ChalleNGe programs. Second, applicants who were under the age of 16v were not given admission but they were not ruled out from applying in the future they were also given the chance to be in the control study group. Finally, in most cases the first wave of follow-up surveys, from which conclusions about the early impacts of ChalleNGe were drawn, were administered only to the first cohort of random assignment for each site despite the fact that random assignments had been conducted for two or more cohorts at most sites. It was observed that in several areas related to health and lifestyle, the ChalleNGe group appears to perform significantly worse than their control group counterparts of which the researchers seemed not to have any reason for the trend. They included issues like; a higher likelihood of being obese, a higher proportion using illegal drugs compared to their control group counterparts and a lower proportion of ChalleNGe participants reporting that they always use birth control. References Bloom, Dan, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks, and Conrad Mandsager, (2009).  Reengage High School Dropouts: Early Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program Evaluation,   New York: MDRC.   Millenky, Megan, Dan Bloom, and Colleen Dillon, (2010). Making the Transition: Interim Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation,   New York: MDRC.   Millenky, Megan, Dan Bloom, Sara Muller-Ravett, and Joseph Broadus, (2011).  Staying on Course: Three-Year Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation,   New York: MDRC. Read More