Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The Comprehensive Youth Development Evaluation Report: 2003.doc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

The Comprehensive Youth Development Evaluation Report: 2003.doc

467
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
467
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Georgia Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative Assessment of Progress Report Under Contract with Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education, Office of School-to-Work The Occupational Research Group College of Education The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia September, 2003 Dr. Richard L. Lynch, Principal Investigator Dr. Dorothy Harnish, Project Coordinator Dr. Ann Peisher, Research Consultant Jana Thompson, Data Analyst 1
  • 2. GEORGIA REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE: ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS REPORT SEPTEMBER, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY∗ The State Office of the Georgia School-to-Work (STW) Initiative contracted with the Occupational Research Group (ORG) at the University of Georgia to assess the state’s progress in building federally funded school-to-work systems through local partnerships. The Year Two STW assessment focuses on the school-to-work implementation strategies employed by the 41 Partnerships during Year Two and includes information about the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System (CYDS) Initiative begun in 2002 and continued through Fiscal Year 2003. PURPOSE OF CYDS INITIATIVE ASSESSMENT The Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System (CYDS) Initiative was funded by Georgia School-to-Work to support the integration of youth services and activities across a broad range of state-level agencies with planning and implementation at the regional and local levels throughout Georgia. Using the Definitions, Guiding Principles, Purposes, Goals, and Strategies developed by Georgia’s newly formed State Level Partners Group, the CYDS concept was introduced to key youth providers at the regional and local levels and regional champions were identified. Regional teams were formed to consider how the concept of a CYDS and partnership with a broader range of partners could best serve the youth in their regions. School-to-Work planning and implementation grants funding were made available to 12 economic development regions. (See attached map of the 12 economic development regions.) These regional efforts were the focus of this 2002-2003 CYDS assessment. The CYDS evaluation of progress report sought to address questions in the following six major focus areas: • Vision and Goals • Partners and Partnerships • Capacity Building • Organizing, Planning, and Implementing • Outcomes • Sustainability DATA SOURCES AND ISSUES  This summary and the original report were prepared by the Occupational Research Group at the University of Georgia under contract with the Georgia School-To-Work office, Department of Technical and Adult Education. Principal investigator was Richard L. Lynch; project managers were Ann Piesher and Dorothy Harnish; and data analyst was Jana Thompson. i
  • 3. Data Sources Information and data for answering the evaluation questions for this assessment came from the following sources: • three archive files with records from the School-to-Work office, the State Partners Group, and the School and Main training staff • grant applications, meeting notes, and quarterly reports from each of the 12 economic development regions • interviews with six members of the State Partner Group, including the School-to- Work state staff • customized April quarterly report from regional lead contacts in each of the 12 regions • CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcomes Assessment survey developed by ORG and distributed to all regional and state partners in April 2003 Data Quality Issues Time and budget constraints limited the interviews to six individuals who represented the organizing state agencies and the key state staff responsible for funding the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative. A number of regions were late in submitting the April quarterly report and data were inconsistent on some reports, which limited analysis. The CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey was distributed to 214 regional partners in 10 regions (two regions had not been active enough to warrant completing the Assessment) and 21 state partners affiliated with the Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative for a total N of 235. Seventy regional partners, representing 10 regions, and 8 state partners returned the Assessment for a 33.2 % overall response rate. This response rate was lower than desired for a statewide survey. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS VISION AND GOALS The Regional CYDS Initiative is perceived to have: • Provided a Youth Development framework, philosophy, goals, and definitions which are shared by relevant partners. • Promoted a common set of desired outcomes which are shared by partners. • Focused on both outcomes for youth and on system outcomes to support positive youth development. • Made decisions about communities and youth with community and youth involvement at regional (not state) level. ii
  • 4. PARTNERSHIPS • State partners saw increased linkages for both state-level efforts and for regional efforts. • Regional partners did not perceive increased linkages as positively as state partners for either state or regional efforts. • Regional partners agreed that the Regional CYDS Initiative complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region. ORGANIZING, PLANNING, AND IMPLEMENTING • Regional respondents felt positive about their approach to organizing, planning, and implementing the regional initiatives. OUTCOMES • Regions are perceived to be making more progress than the state on achieving outcomes. • State-level partners perceive system outcomes at the regional level. • Regions with greater tenure of collaborative effort and having given significant attention to relationship building and structure formation perceive more progress on outcomes related to both state-level and regional efforts. SUSTAINABILITY • Regions perceive the system being established through their Regional CYDS Initiatives is sustainable and will allow them to more adequately ensure that youth in the regions will become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through participation in family and community life. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS There was, and is, potential in positioning regions for more efficient acquisition and utilization of resources and more integrated delivery of services, opportunities, and supports for youth. If this concept of regionalization is to happen throughout Georgia, it seems imperative that the State Partners Group, as the visionary leadership, immediately provide support and nurturing of this fledgling effort. Several things must happen. • Although not necessarily emanating from the data gathered for this assessment, there needs to be developed and disseminated a white paper or analysis of conditions and data that might lead policy groups and stakeholders to understand the need for development and nurturing of a Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative. In effect, what problems or challenges is a collaborative, at the regional level, trying to solve? Why is a regional, interagency approach in collaboration with iii
  • 5. the private sector a viable solution to enable all Georgia youth to become educated, healthy, connected, and employable? • The State Partner Group must be re-energized and new leadership identified. The state group should consider expanding membership to include private sector, legislative, and other governance involvement. Both Family Connection Partnership and Workforce Investment Boards need to be engaged or re-engaged, as they represent public and private partnerships with broad vested interests in the outcomes of youth. • Attention must continue to be focused on the necessary work of supporting the collaborative process at the state and regional levels. Potential funding, leadership, facilitation, support, and direction to continue the work might come from some state- level blended funding as envisioned and hoped for at the regional level. This would be an excellent opportunity for the state level to model and lead the way for the regions. • Regions must be engaged in determining the next steps for their own individual efforts and in shaping the future of the Georgia State Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative. • If the Initiative is to continue, strong effort should be expended in maintaining and fostering state-to-regional communication and support during its continual development. While even this current level of assessment may have been premature, it has provided a snapshot of some significant work in process and some good progress on regional collaboration and functional capacity. Continuing to study the collaborative process of the Regional CYDS Initiative, even beyond STW funding, with an appropriate collaborative leadership model as a reference would be an appropriate and scholarly endeavor. It is far too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative in changing outcomes for youth or in developing a system capable of changing outcomes for youth. It has been only two years since the first formal meeting of the State Partners Group in June, 2001. It has been only eighteen months since the first meetings were held with key youth providers during January, 2002. It has been only one year since the twelve regions submitted their first planning grants and six months since they were awarded the continuation grants. It is important to note that the stakeholders do agree with the overall framework, vision, goals, proposed outcomes, and general desire to improve conditions for youth in Georgia. Participants in the Regional CYDS Initiative all want to ensure a better quality of life and outcomes for all youth than is currently thought to prevail for so many in Georgia. Further, those involved with the Regional CYDS Initiative thus far seem to support the collaborative or partnership systems approach to problem solving relative to Georgia’s iv
  • 6. youth development. They are committed. They want state leadership. They want more communication and information. Group formation, cohesion, planning, implementing, and just getting things done within a collaborative take time. Education and training in the collaborative process may need to occur. Turf issues need to be resolved. Public educators at a policy level need to be included and engaged in the Initiative. Based on our assessment of the data, participating in various meetings, and conducting interviews with relevant stakeholders, we believe the development of the Initiative needs more time, leadership and coordination, and the process of its development more study. Concomitantly, attention should be given to assessing measurable outcomes and progress toward achieving them. The process, the study of the process, and the outcomes of the process are deserving of more time. v
  • 7. Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................i Background and Context .................................................................................................1 Assessment Questions and Sources of Data ....................................................................1 Records of State Partner Group, School to Work staff, and School and Main...............3 Interviews with Key State Partners.................................................................................3 April 15, 2003 Quarterly Reports...................................................................................4 CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment.......................................................4 Vision and Goals ...............................................................................................................5 Assessment Questions.....................................................................................................5 How did the Regional CYDS Initiative come about?.....................................................5 What was the vision for the Regional CYDS Initiative?................................................7 What were the desired outcomes of the Regional CYDS Initiative?..............................8 Broad Purposes and Outcomes.......................................................................................8 System Purposes.............................................................................................................8 System Outcomes............................................................................................................9 Guiding Principles..........................................................................................................9 To what extent did the regions embrace the vision of the Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative?...............................................................................9 CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment.......................................................9 April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report...................................................................................12 Partners and Partnerships .............................................................................................12 CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment.....................................................12 April 15, 2003 Quarterly Reports.................................................................................13 March 10-11, 2003 Regional Meeting Notes................................................................14 Capacity Building ...........................................................................................................16 What approaches were utilized to develop the capacity of Regional CYDS teams? .........................................................................................16 To what degree were these approaches seen as relevant and effective? ......................17 Organizing, Planning, and Implementing ....................................................................19 What were the bases for planning in each region? ......................................................19 What approaches were chosen for implementing regional strategies? ........................19 What issues were addressed by each Regional CYDS Initiative? ...............................22 What challenges were faced by the regions in implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative? ....................................................................................23 To what degree do regions perceive their approach to organizing, planning, and implementing have been effective? .................................................23 vi
  • 8. Outcomes .........................................................................................................................24 To what degree do regional and state participants perceive CYDS desired outcomes are being achieved? ....................................................................24 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................28 To what degree are School to Work funds being leveraged into additional funding for youth development initiatives? ...........................................28 To what degree do regional partners feel the Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable? ..............................................................................28 Future of the CYDS Initiative and Recommendations.................................................29 Discussion of Findings ....................................................................................................31 Vision and Goals...........................................................................................................32 Partners and Partnerships..............................................................................................33 Capacity Building.........................................................................................................34 Organizing, Planning, and Implementing.....................................................................35 Outcomes......................................................................................................................35 Sustainability.................................................................................................................36 Regional Difference......................................................................................................36 Summary of Key Findings..............................................................................................37 Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................38 Tables Table 1: Assessment Questions and Sources of Data Table 2: Means for Questions 1, 2, 8, and 9 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment Table 3: Sector Selection Table 4: Sectors Represented in Regional CYDS and Level of Involvement Table 5: Means for Questions 11 and 12 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment Table 6: Means for Questions 14 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment Table 7: Means for Questions 13 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment Table 8: Means for Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment Table 9: Means for Questions 15 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment Table 10: Summary of Means for Perception of State and Regional Effort on the Perceived Outcome Assessment vii
  • 9. APPENDICES Appendix A Georgia Economic Development Regions Map. Appendix B Interview Questions for the State-Level Partners Group Appendix C CYDS April 2003 Quarterly Report Content and Format Regional Lead Contact’s Perception of Participant’s Level of Involvement Appendix D CYDS Perceived Outcome Assessment Survey Packet including Cover Letter, CYDS Background Information, and Perception Survey Appendix E CYDS Perceived Outcome Assessment Survey Return by Region Respondent Data (Position Related to CYDS and Sectors Represented) Appendix F CYDS Perceived Outcome Assessment Survey Results Appendix G Respondent Comments Recorded on the CYDS Perceived Outcome Assessment Survey viii
  • 10. Georgia Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative Assessment of Progress Report September, 2003 Background and Context The regional Comprehensive Youth Development System (CYDS) Initiative is a major project of the Georgia School-to-Work (STW) initiative, administered by the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education (DTAE) with funding from the federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) of 1994. In June of 2001, the State of Georgia sent a team to the Southeastern Regional Summit: Creating a Comprehensive Youth Investment Strategy – a Community Centered Approach. At this conference, the participants explored the potential feasibility and benefit of integrating youth services and activities across the range of state-level agencies, as well as at the regional and local levels throughout Georgia. It was recognized that in order for a Georgia CYDS Initiative to proceed, a broader base of partners would need to be established at regional and state levels. Following the conference, the state team interacted with the state-level Community Youth Development Learning Resource Team, in existence and facilitated by Family Connection since October 2000 and the Youth Services and School-to- Work Committee of the Georgia Workforce Investment Board (WIA), housed in the Georgia Department of Labor. These three independent efforts (Family Connection, WIA, and STW) merged to launch a comprehensive youth development system for the benefit of children and youth in Georgia. By January 2002, this State Level Partners Group had articulated Definitions, Guiding Principles, Purposes, Goals, and Strategies and moved to introduce the CYDS concept to key youth providers at regional and local levels and to identify regional champions. Four regional meetings were held between March and June 2002 to provide regional teams with their first substantive opportunity to consider how the concept of a CYDS, with a broader range of state- level partners, could best serve the youth in their regions. Following this series of meetings, DTAE’s School-to-Work initiative made substantial funding available ($75,000) to each of Georgia’s 12 economic development regions to support the concept of a comprehensive youth development system. (See Appendix A for a map of the state’s economic development regions.) For funds to be released, each region was required to submit a plan which specified how the work would be continued after the School-to-Work seed money expires. Upon successful completion of a planning process and submission of a continuation grant, each regional team was awarded an additional $75,000 to implement the plan it had developed. By May 2002 each region had been awarded a planning grant; by January 2003 each region had been awarded an implementation grant. In March 2003, the State School to Work Office finalized a plan with the Occupational Research Group (ORG) at the University of Georgia to conduct a statewide assessment of the progress made in developing comprehensive youth development systems in the state’s 12 economic development regions. This report documents the progress being made on developing a regional CYDS in Georgia through June 30, 2003. Assessment Questions and Sources of Data Questions were developed related to six major focus areas including vision and goals, partners 1
  • 11. and partnerships, capacity building, planning and implementation, outcomes, and sustainability. Information and data for answering the questions came from the following sources: • three archive sources, including records of the School to Work office, the State Partners Group, and the School and Main training staff; • grant applications and quarterly reports; • Six interviews with members of the State Partners Group and School to Work staff, conducted on March 14, 2003 and March 20, 2003; • customized quarterly report from regional lead contacts due April 15, 2003; and • CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey instrument distributed to all regional and state partners April 2, 2003 with a requested return date of April 21, 2003. Table 1 summarizes key questions and related sources of data. Table 1. Assessment Questions and Sources of Data Questions by Focus Area Sources of Data Vision and Goals • How did the Regional CYDS Initiative come • Records of the State Partners Group and about? School and Main facilitator/trainers • What was the vision of the Regional CYDS • Interviews with State Partners Group and Initiative? School to Work staff • What were the desired outcomes of the • April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report Regional CYDS strategy? • To what extent did the regions embrace the vision of the CYDS Initiative? Partners and Partnerships • What partners affiliated with the regional • Grant applications and quarterly reports, efforts and what sectors did they represent? especially April 15, 2003 quarterly report • To what degree were various sectors • Respondent Sector analysis of 2002-2003 represented and to what extent were they Perceived Outcome Assessment. involved? • To what degree did the Regional CYDS Initiative increase regional-to-state and state- to-regional linkages? • To what degree did the Regional CYDS Initiative complement and enhance previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region? Capacity Building What approaches were utilized to develop the • School to Work and School and Main capacity of Regional CYDS teams? records and session evaluations To what degree were these approaches seen as • CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome relevant and effective? Assessment Organizing, Planning, and Implementing • What were the bases for planning in each • April 15, 2003 Quarterly Reports region? • Records of School to Work and School • What approaches were chosen for and Main facilitated events 2
  • 12. Questions by Focus Area Sources of Data implementing regional strategies? • CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Survey • What issues have been addressed by each Regional CYDS Initiative? • What challenges did the regions face in implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative? • To what degree do regions perceive their approach to organizing, planning, and implementing have been effective? Outcomes • To what degree do regional and state • Interviews with School to Work staff and participants perceive desired outcomes are State Partners Group being achieved? • CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome • What accomplishments and outcomes are Assessment cited by regional partner groups? • April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report Sustainability • To what degree are School to Work funds • April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report being leveraged into additional funding for • CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome youth development initiatives? Assessment • To what degree do regional partners feel the • Interviews with School to Work staff and Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable? State Partners Group • What do state and regional partners see as the future of the CYDS Initiative and what recommendations do they offer for insuring the vision of the CYDS Initiative and insuring that youth become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through successful participation in family and community life? Each planned source of data will be discussed individually below, followed by a discussion of the data and information used to answer the assessment questions. Records of State Partners Group, School to Work staff, and School and Main Excellent records exist for the State Partners Group and all meetings facilitated by School and Main for both the State Partners Group and several regional summits. The regional summits, held in March and June of 2002, were the first opportunity for the members of regional and local youth development initiatives to network and further their individual efforts by joining together. Later regional summits were used to provide training for regional partners on implementing a Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System. Interviews with Key State Partners A short list of partners playing key roles in planning and initiating the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative was presented to the Georgia School to Work Office as potential candidates for individual interviews. (See Appendix B for the questions presented to the state partners that guided the interviews.) Some additions were made to the list, and each partner in turn suggested others to interview. Time and budget constraints limited the interviews to the following individuals who represent the key organizing agencies and organizations of the 3
  • 13. Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative. • Marilyn Akers – State Consultant for the Georgia School to Work Office, responsible for coordinating the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative. • Becky Winslow – Division of Family and Children’s Services and formerly assigned to Family Connection Partnership, one of the original conveners of state partners interested in youth development. • Patt Stonehouse – Director of Workforce Development and Education Initiatives within the Department of Technical and Adult Education and responsible for the School to Work Initiative which, in turn, provided $1,800,000 in direct grants to the regions to support the Regional CYDS Initiative. • Sue Chandler - School to Work Manager of the Georgia School-to-Work Office • Carolyn Aidman - Division of Public Health, Department of Human Resources where youth development was a primary focus on a parallel course with School to Work youth development initiatives. • Gloria Kuzmik – Executive Director of the Workforce Investment Board April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report The original review of archive records, including grant applications and earliest quarterly reports, indicated archive data would be highly individual by region and provide little consistent information helpful in answering assessment questions. To facilitate the collection of uniform information, the School to Work Office agreed the content of the April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report could be customized to meet the needs of the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development assessment. The format and content of the April 15 report was disseminated March 18, 2003. (See Appendix C.) The report was designed to be completed by the lead contact for each region and provide consistent information across all twelve regions regarding vision and goals of the Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative; how the region organized to do the job; and its approaches to planning and implementation, emerging outcomes and the respondents’ thoughts about sustainability. The report had nine questions requiring narrative answers. Additionally, the report asked each lead contact to provide a list of all regional partners, indicating the sector they represented (i.e., Education, Health, Juvenile Justice, etc.) and their level of involvement in the regional collaborative effort (i.e., member only with little actual involvement (M), member somewhat involved (S), or member heavily involved (H). A detailed analysis of the lead contacts perceptions of participant’s level of involvement, statewide and by regions, is provided in Appendix C. By June 1, 2003, only seven of twelve regions had submitted the April 15 Quarterly Report in the requested format, or in any way which responded to the specific questions of interest. Following an administrative reminder on June 5, 2003, regions responded. By July 1, 2003, all twelve regional reports had been submitted. Three regions, however, identified level of involvement by sector rather than by individual participants, thus affecting subsequent sector analysis (Appendix C). CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment The purpose of administering the Perceived Outcome Assessment survey was to determine the extent to which respondents perceived the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System (CYDS) Initiative has achieved CYDS desired outcomes and purposes. The assessment survey 4
  • 14. included 15 items. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with each of 15 statements, providing one response related to the State-Level Effort and another response related to Regional Effort. They could respond Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. (Cover letter, background information on the CYDS Initiative, and the survey instrument are provided in Appendix D.) The assessment survey was distributed to 214 regional partners in 10 of the 12 regions (Regions 3 and 9 had not been active enough to warrant completing the survey) and 21 state partners affiliated with the Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative for a possible N of 235. Seventy regional partners, representing 10 regions, and 8 state partners returned the Perceived Outcome Assessment survey for a total of 78 or a 33.2 % overall response rate. The regional response rate was 32.7% and the state response rate was 38.1% (Appendix E). Response rates from the various regions ranged from 14.3% (Region 8) to 64.3% (Region 12). The number of responses for each region and their self-identified role within the regional partnership is provided in Appendix E. It is noted that the return rate is not particularly impressive. This is despite repeated attempts to encourage return from both state and regional level partners. It is further noted (and will be discussed again with the results) that the number of those who responded to each item varied. For example, 17 of the total N of 78 did not respond to Question 1 about the framework, philosophy, goals, and definition of CYDS. On other questions (e.g., 4 and 12) 33 or more than 40% of those returning surveys did not respond. Some did return the survey and were counted in the overall response rate, but did not actually answer the questions; rather they provided a comment about not being knowledgeable enough about the particular item or the entire initiative. Across all survey questions, on an average, more respondents provided rankings for regional level efforts than for state-level efforts. However, as could be anticipated, the state- level team responded more frequently to questions about state-level efforts than about regional efforts. Detailed respondent data for state- and regional-level partners are provided in Appendix E. These sources of data were used to answer the assessment questions within the following six categories: • Vision and Goals • Partners and Partnerships • Capacity Building • Organizing, Planning, and Implementing • Outcomes • Sustainability Visions and Goals Assessment Questions • How did the Regional CYDS Initiative come about? • What was the vision for the Regional CYDS Initiative? • What were the desired outcomes of the Regional CYDS Initiative? • To what extent did the regions embrace the vision of the Regional CYDS Initiative? How did the Regional CYDS Initiative come about? Interviews with members of the State Partners Group and archive records indicate the 5
  • 15. Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative resulted from unique timing and the confluence of several situations and sets of needs: • The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, which was passed by Congress in 1994 and sunset in 2001, was jointly administered and funded through the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education. The Georgia School-to-Work Initiative now receives its funds through the U.S. Department of Labor. Grants were made to individual states in the mid to late 1990s to develop business/education partnerships that support the education and workforce needs of young people. Among other purposes, funds from the STWOA could be used to promote the formation of local partnerships that are dedicated to linking the worlds of school and work, including secondary and postsecondary schools, public and private employers, labor organizations, government, community-based organizations, parents, students, state education agencies, and training and human service agencies. Throughout the STWOA, verbiage speaks to the importance of helping to motivate all youth to strive to succeed, obtain good jobs, and continue their education. As a pre-K – 16 initiative, states were given great flexibility in addressing the needs of their communities. The funding was intended as “venture capital” to do the one thing or set of things necessary to assist students in their education and career development. In Georgia, the federal funding for the initiative will end in late 2003 or be extended through 2004 subject to U.S. Department of Labor approval. Based on the work of Georgia’s 41 School-to-Work Partnerships, Georgia’s strategy evolved into four focus areas: Student Achievement, Career Awareness, Employer Involvement in Education, and Youth Development. • The federal Workforce Investment Act defined ten youth program elements that addressed areas similar to those in the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. These elements are the responsibilities of Regional Youth Councils, a private/public partnership that should include youth. The elements include: tutoring/study skills training, alternative school services, employment connected to academic/occupational learning, employment opportunities – paid and unpaid, occupational skills training, leadership development, supportive services, follow- up services, adult mentoring, and comprehensive guidance/counseling. Throughout much of Georgia, community representatives and leaders are being involved in both the School-to- Work Partnerships and the Youth Councils of the Workforce Investment Boards. • The Georgia Division of Public Health, Office of Adolescent Health and Youth Development, recognized in the late 1990s to 2000 that adolescent health-related issues nested within a larger framework of youth issues and embraced the asset approach to youth development as a philosophy which could undergird total youth development. While federal money flowed to fix problems of youth, leaders recognized more positive youth outcomes could be achieved with a different approach. This office contracted for the development and testing of a competency-based curriculum to (a) increase skills of staff of youth-serving agencies and organizations, and (b) to promote integration of youth development practices into the day-to-day work of agencies and communities. In 2002, the curriculum Strategies for Success, Competency and the Asset Approach: Nurturing Assets, Producing Achievement, Building Accomplishments, debuted. Thus, Adolescent Health, with major funding, became a significant player in the youth development arena. • Family Connection, a statewide network of community collaboratives, provides funding to local communities to collaborate, assess community needs and assets related to families and 6
  • 16. children, and develop a strategic plan. In 2000, because youth development was one of the most frequently targeted goal areas for communities, Family Connection convened key local Family Connection coordinators and community partners to create a Learning Resource Team for Youth Development. The goal was to create a learning environment that could result in more coordinated local planning around youth development issues. As the communities pursued strategic planning around youth development with some areas creating regional learning resource teams, they encountered the vast array of “players” in the field and experienced the rigidity of autonomous systems they felt were unresponsive to integrated planning and service delivery. • Local community feedback to Family Connection requested that the state-level agencies “get their act together,” thus making it easier for them to do integrated programming for youth in ways that meet youth needs. Local communities expressed frustration about rigid funding streams and guidelines that made it difficult to integrate service delivery and programming for the same target groups. Multiple and duplicative reporting requirements were burdensome. This feedback was flowing to state-level Family Connection from its Community Youth Development Learning Resource Teams. The Georgia Division of Public Health was also hearing the same feedback related to its Adolescent Health and Youth Development initiative. In 2001, Family Connection was already convening a group of interested state partners, loosely known as the State Learning Resource Team, to begin the state-level conversations around youth development. • In June 2001, a Georgia team representing the WIA Youth Services Committee with additional state, regional, and local level participation (e.g., from the School-to-Work initiative) attended the Southeast Youth Development Institute in Kissimmee, Florida. Following this meeting, their group merged with the work of Family Connection Partnership Learning Resource Teams for Youth Development. Thus, the State Partners Group was formed from this merger. The merged state-level group decided the locally perceived disconnect and dysfunction was a result of vertical misunderstanding unintended by the state partners. The State Partners Group realized the conduits for local information were the regional and district entities and decided a strategy was needed to involve the regional level in a way that modeled a partnership. Additionally, state-level leadership in the School to Work initiative recognized a growing trend toward regionalization of federal and state funding streams and wanted to position Georgia for responding appropriately. This need for modeling a regional partnership, along with the growing trend in funding to regional entities, triggered the concept of developing a regional “intermediary.” Thus, the vision of a regional comprehensive youth development system was born. What was the vision for the Regional CYDS Initiative? The convening partners of the State Partners Group all envisioned a regional youth development system that would set the stage for more efficient acquisition and utilization of resources and more integrated delivery of services, opportunities, and supports for youth. Documents of the State Partners Group reveal significant time spent between June 2001 and January 2002 framing the concept of a Comprehensive Youth Development System and building a rationale. The first question that arose in this process was: “What is Youth Development?” The following definition emerged. Youth Development is an ongoing process of building skills, knowledge, personal attributes, and positive attitudes though services, opportunities, and supports whereby youth and families are 7
  • 17. engaged as partners to ensure that youth become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through successful participation in family and community life. The next major question addressed by the group was “What is a Comprehensive Youth Development System?” School and Main, the organization that provided design work and facilitation of the CYDS process at the state and national levels, developed the following description which was accepted by state, regional, and local partners. A Comprehensive Youth Development System (CYDS) focuses on supporting youth in their preparation to lead healthy, productive lives in ways that meet their needs, the needs of their families, and the needs of the community. Comprehensive youth development systems are typically created as broad based partnerships among youth serving organizations including, but not limited to, PK-12 and post secondary educational institutions, community based organizations, businesses, economic development agencies, other appropriate governmental agencies and initiatives (e.g., juvenile justice, public health, social services, faith based organizations, etc.) The basic premise of the CYDS is that organizations provide detailed information about the services they provide and then engage in an active and ongoing process of matching those services and available resources to the needs of youth and their families in their particular communities. What were the desired outcomes of the Regional CYDS Initiative? The State Partners Group developed the broad purpose and outcomes envisioned for the Comprehensive Youth Development System, the system purposes and desired system outcomes given below. Broad Purpose and Outcomes Enable all of Georgia’s youth to achieve their highest potential by becoming: • Educated Youth – ready for and succeeding in school, graduating from high school, attending higher (post secondary) education and training. • Healthy Youth – physically fit, diplomas before diapers, drug free, crime free, tobacco free. • Connected Youth – engaged in positive after school activities, in healthy relationships with adults and with peers, contributing positively to their communities. • Employable Youth – able to be successfully employed. System Purposes • Create a holistic, focused, and coordinated system of opportunities, supports, and services for Georgia’s youth. • Model collaborative leadership and shared responsibility for accomplishing the work of other professionals and with youth. • Acquire more and better evidence of what positively impacts youth. • Create a change capable system (i.e., able to change focus and activities with changing needs). • Provide a wide and diverse range of activities and services for youth. • Enable all youth to feel valued, to be engaged, and to achieve their highest potential. System Outcomes • Shared Youth Development framework and models for state and local planning and decision- 8
  • 18. making. • Shared set of philosophy, outcomes, goals, and definitions. • State partners’ decision-making supports achievement of respective missions/mandates. • Jointly trained/developed staff. • Youth Development services/resource matrix to guide/simplify planning and resource allocation. • A directory of Youth Development services, opportunities, and supports. • Comprehensive Youth Development calendar of activities, events, and grants training. • Blended funding. Guiding Principles • Focus on outcomes for youth in addition to system changes to support youth outcomes. • Work products have meaning in communities. • Decisions affecting youth and communities are made with youth and community participation. • Partners at the state table share responsibility for accomplishing the work. To what extent did the regions embrace the vision of the Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative? There were two sources of data for responding to this question: (1) 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment, and (2) April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment Four items (Questions 1, 2, 8, 9) on the 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey addressed this question. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the four separate statements that are discussed below. They could respond Strongly Agree (4.0), Agree (3.0), Disagree (2.0), or Strongly Disagree (1.0). There were 78 respondents to the survey representing 10 regions and the state-level team. (Responses for each question on the survey by region and for the state-level team are detailed in Appendix F.) Not all 78 responded to each survey item. The results for these four questions, including the n responding to each is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Means for Questions 1, 2, 8, and 9 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment State-level Effort Regional Effort Overall State Regional Overall State Regional Mean Team Members Mean Team Members 1. The CYDS Initiative has provided a Youth Development framework, 2.97 3.00 2.96 3.10 3.40 3.08 philosophy, goals, and definitions which are shared by relevant partners for (n=61 ) (n=7 ) (n=54 ) (n=68 ) (n=5 ) (n=63 ) planning and decision making. 2. The CYDS Initiative has promoted a 2.88 3.00 2.87 3.04 3.00 3.05 common set of desired youth outcomes which are shared by the relevant partners. (n=60 ) (n=7 ) (n=53) (n=68 ) (n=5) (n=63) 9
  • 19. State-level Effort Regional Effort Overall State Regional Overall State Regional Mean Team Members Mean Team Members 1. The CYDS Initiative has provided a Youth Development framework, 2.97 3.00 2.96 3.10 3.40 3.08 philosophy, goals, and definitions which are shared by relevant partners for (n=61 ) (n=7 ) (n=54 ) (n=68 ) (n=5 ) (n=63 ) planning and decision making. 8. The CYDS Initiative has focused on both desired outcomes for youth and on 2.91 3.29 2.85 3.08 3.40 3.05 system changes to support youth outcomes (n=53) (n=7) (n=46) (n=66) (n=5) (n=61) 9. Within the CYDS Initiative, decisions affecting youth and communities have 2.42 2.29 2.44 2.92 3.40 2.89 been made with youth and community (n=50) (n=7) (n=43) (n=66) (n=5) (n=61) participation. Question 1: “The CYDS Initiative has provided a Youth Development framework, philosophy, goals, and definitions which are shared by relevant partners for planning and decision making.” Overall, both regional and state partners answering this question tended to agree that the CYDS Initiative has provided a Youth Development framework, philosophy, goals, and definitions that are shared by relevant partners for planning and decision making. The overall mean response for all responding regions and the state regarding state-level effort was 2.97, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). The overall mean related to regional effort was 3.10, between Agree (3.0) and Strongly Agree (4.0), indicating a slightly more positive perception related to regional efforts than state-level efforts. The state response for the regional effort was 3.40 compared to a mean of 3.00 for their own efforts. The regional response for the regional effort was 3.08 compared with the state-effort mean of 2.96. Of note is that the state and regional respondents have similar perceptions about relevant partners sharing framework, philosophy, goals, and definitions. As displayed in Appendix F, the highest regional means for state-level effort are Regions 6 and 10 with 3.33 and 3.29 respectively, and Regions 2, 5, 7, and 11, all with a mean of 3.00. Highest regional means for regional effort are Regions 10, 1, and 2 with 3.56, 3.43, and 3.40 respectively and Regions, 6, 7, and 8, all with a mean of 3.00. Question 2: “The CYDS Initiative has promoted a common set of desired youth outcomes which are shared by the relevant partners.” Overall, both regional and state partners answering this question tended to agree that the CYDS Initiative has promoted a common set of desired youth outcomes which are shared by the relevant partners. The overall mean response for all responding regions and the state regarding state-level effort was 2.88, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). The overall mean related to regional effort was 3.04, between Agree (3.0) and Strongly Agree (4.0). Again, this difference seems to indicate more positive perceptions related to regional efforts than state-level efforts. Means for state respondents for both regional and state efforts were the same (3.00), while regional respondents gave the regional effort a higher rating, 3.05, as compared with a 2.87 for state-level efforts. 10
  • 20. As shown in Appendix F, the highest regional means for state-level effort are Regions 10, with a mean of 3.50 and Regions 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, all with a mean of 3.00. Highest regional means for regional effort are Regions 1, 10, and 2 with means of 3.71, 3.44, and 3.20 respectively, and Regions 5, 7, and 8, all with a mean of 3.00. Question 8: “The CYDS Initiative has focused on both desired outcomes for youth and on system changes to support youth outcomes.” Seventy-eight surveys were returned, representing 10 regions and the state. For state-level effort, 25 of the 78 respondents (32%) did not provide a rating. Sixty-six (all but twelve) respondents provided a rating for regional level efforts. Again, both regional and state partners answering this question tended to agree that the CYDS Initiative has focused on both desired outcomes for youth and on system changes to support youth outcomes. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.91, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0) and for regional effort was 3.08, between Agree and Strongly Agree. Thus, the regional effort was perceived more positively. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.85 compared to the state response of 3.29, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort less positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 3.05 compared to a state response of 3.40, with the state respondents perceiving regional efforts more positively than did the regional respondents. As shown in Appendix F, the region with the highest mean related to state-level effort was Region 10 with a mean of 3.40. The Regions with the highest means related to regional effort were Regions 10 (3.44) where five of nine respondents Strongly Agreed with the statement and Region 1 (3.43) where three of seven respondents Strongly Agreed with the statement and Region 2 (3.40) where two respondents Strongly Agreed. Question 9: “Within the CYDS Initiative, decisions affecting youth and communities have been made with youth and community participation.” Seventy-eight surveys were returned, representing 10 regions and the state. Of the returned surveys, 50 respondents answered this question for state-level effort and 66 respondents answered for regional effort. In this case, regional partners answering the question came closer to agreeing than did state partners that, within the CYDS Initiative, decisions affecting youth and communities have been made with youth and community participation. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.42 and for regional effort 2.92, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). Thus, respondents disagreed that state-level efforts included youth and community participation, but tended to agree that regional efforts did so. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.44 compared to the state response of 2.29, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort more positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 2.89 compared to a state response of 3.40, with the state respondents perceiving regional efforts more positively than did the regional respondents The region with the highest mean related to state-level effort was Region 10 with a mean of 3.33. The regions with the highest means related to regional effort were Regions 1 (3.86) where six of seven respondents strongly agreed with the statement and Region 2 (3.80) where four of five respondents strongly agreed with the statement, Region 8 (3.50) where one respondent Strongly 11
  • 21. Agreed and Region 10 (3.33) where four of nine respondents Strongly Agreed. Overall, eight of the ten regions had a mean rating showing agreement to strong agreement for the statement related to decisions being made with youth and community participation. April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report On the April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report, regions were asked to respond to the question “What have you understood to be the vision and goal of the Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative?”(Appendix C - Question 1) Content analysis shows that six of the twelve regions used words like “system, structure, infrastructure”; nine used terms like “resource maximization – avoiding duplication, active and ongoing process of matching services and resources to meet needs of youth and families”; eight used the terms “team, partnership, and collaboration.” Nine regions specifically mentioned a youth focus or implied meeting the needs of youth, while three regions specifically talked of broader policy arenas like “community development” and “economic development” and “workforce development.” None of the regions actually mentioned the possibility of being an intermediary, but eight wrote of resource allocation, matching, and maximization. One wrote of “leveraging resources.” Since the word “intermediary” was never written in documents used for training and the development of regional teams, it might be assumed the “intermediary” vision is a long-term outcome of shorter-term outcomes identified in written materials. All regions seemed to be embracing the need for and act of collaboration at some level. Partners and Partnerships Assessment Questions • What partners affiliated with the regional efforts and what sectors did they represent? • To what degree were various sectors represented and to what extent were they involved? • To what degree did the Regional CYDS Initiative increase regional-to-state and state-to- regional linkages? • To what degree did the Regional CYDS Initiative complement and enhance previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region? What partners affiliated with the regional efforts and what sectors did they represent? To what degree were various sectors represented and to what extent were they involved? Three sources of information provided data for answering these two questions. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment There were 78 regional and state partner responses to the CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey. Respondents were asked to indicate the sector(s) they represented, marking all that apply. Of the 78 respondents, 74 marked a total of 123 sectors. Four respondents did not indicate a sector. Over half (46) of the respondents selected one sector; 28 respondents selected more than one sector. (See Appendix E – Sector Analysis.) 12
  • 22. Table 3 includes information on the sectors selected by the respondents to the Perceived Outcome Assessment. Family Connection and School to Work were the most frequently selected sectors. Table 3. Sector Selection Number of % of Sectors Selections Respondents Family Connection 17 13.8% School to Work 17 13.8% Other 11 8.9% Workforce Investment Act Area Representative 11 8.9% Youth Council Representative 10 8.1% Department of Technical and Adult Education 9 7.3% Public Health 7 5.7% Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities/ Addiction Disorders 6 4.9% Tech Prep 5 4.1% Department of Juvenile Justice 4 3.3% Department of Family & Children Services 4 3.3% Regional Development Center 4 3.3% Community Employer 3 2.4% Department of Human Resources 3 2.4% Department of Education 2 1.6% Department of Labor 2 1.6% Chambers of Commerce 2 1.6% Communities in Schools 2 1.6% Rehabilitation Services 1 0.8% Department of Community Affairs 1 0.8% Boys and Girls Clubs 1 0.8% Youth Apprenticeship Program 1 0.8% April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report Lead contacts providing the April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report were asked to provide a list of current CYDS regional partners and assign two codes for each name: one code to indicate the sector represented and a second code to indicate their level of involvement (M – Member Only, S – Member Somewhat Involved, and H – Member Heavily Involved.). Three of the twelve regional quarterly reports provided the level of involvement information for each sector represented, rather than for each individual partner. Thus, when frequencies for each sector were compiled in those three regions, each sector represented received a count of one--rather than the actual frequency likely represented in the regional group (i.e., if Family Connection was marked, it would receive a count of one, regardless of the number of Family Connection representatives actually participating with the regional group.) Because of this inconsistency, conclusions about sector representation and level of involvement may be skewed. Overall, the lead contacts listed 277 regional partners and perceived almost 60% of their partners 13
  • 23. to be heavily involved, with 21.3% being somewhat involved and 19.5% being members only. (Appendix C provides a detailed analysis of the regional lead contact’s report on sector and level of participant involvement.) Twenty-four separate sectors were identified for coding and all were used for at least 2 partners. Additionally, the code for “other” was used for 33 partners and included predominately private non profit organizations. Table 4 presents, in order of frequency, the sectors identified for the 277 regional partners, along with the percentage of each sector perceived by the lead contact to be Heavily Involved, Somewhat Involved, or Member Only. Table 4. Sectors Represented in Regional CYDS and Level of Involvement Level of Involvement Heavily Somewhat Member Only Sector # Involved Involved # % # % # % Family Connection 39 21 53.8 9 23.1 9 23.1 Other (e.g., private, nonprofit) 33 15 45.5 4 12.1 14 42.4 Youth Council Representative 29 20 69.0 8 27.6 1 3.4 Workforce Investment Act Area 19 15 78.9 3 15.8 1 5.3 Representative Public Health 18 12 66.7 3 16.7 3 16.7 School to Work 17 11 64.7 6 35.3 0 0.0 Technical Colleges 15 4 26.7 8 53.3 3 20.0 Department of Education 14 5 35.7 5 35.7 4 28.6 Department of Juvenile Justice 13 8 61.5 2 15.4 3 23.1 Mental Health/ Dev. Disabilities/ 11 10 90.9 0 0.0 1 9.1 Addictive Disorders Regional Development Center 8 8 100.0 0 0.0 0 00.0 Department of Family & 8 7 87.5 0 0.0 1 12.5 Children’s Services Department of Labor 8 3 37.5 1 12.5 4 50.0 Tech Prep 7 4 57.1 2 28.6 1 14.3 Department of Community Affairs 5 3 60.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 Certified Literate Community 4 3 75.0 1 25.0 0 00.0 Program Department of Industry, Trade & 4 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 Tourism Community Employer 4 2 50.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 Regional Educational Services 4 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 Agency Chamber of Commerce 4 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 Communities in Schools 4 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 Rehabilitation Services 3 2 66.7 0 0.0 1 33.3 Boys and Girls Clubs 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 00.0 Department of Human Resources 2 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 00.0 Youth Apprenticeship Program 2 1 50.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 TOTALS 277 164 59.2 59 21.3 54 19.5 14
  • 24. March 10-11, 2003 Regional Meeting Notes At the March, 2003 meeting of regional teams, there was significant discussion about the difficulty in getting local education officials involved in the regional collaborative effort. The issue was seen as important enough to warrant a discussion session devoted to Involvement of Education, which was attended by five of the twelve regions. The discussion centered on reasons the problem existed – perhaps because there are not many educational partners with a regional scope – and suggestions for obtaining their involvement. Data in Table 4 suggests the Department of Education has one of the higher frequencies in Sector Representation. However, closer examination of sectors by region as detailed in Appendix C shows that six of the fourteen Department of Education partners are all in one region, Region 5. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment Two items (Questions 11 and 12) on the 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey addressed partners and partnerships, increased linkages, and collaborative relationships. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the two separate statements that are discussed in the remainder of this section. They could respond Strongly Agree (4.0), Agree (3.0), Disagree (2.0), or Strongly Disagree (1.0). The results are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Means for Questions 11 and 12 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment State-level Effort Regional Effort Overall State Regional Overall State Regional Mean Team Members Mean Team Members Q. 11 As a result of the CYDS Initiative thus far, there have been increased 2.83 3.00 2.80 2.81 3.00 2.79 regional-to-state and state-to-regional n=53 n=7 n=46 n=63 n=5 n=58 linkages Q. 12 The Regional CYDS Initiative has complemented and enhanced previously 2.84 3.17 2.79 3.18 3.20 3.18 existing linkages and collaborative efforts n=45 n=6 n=39 n=66 n=5 n=61 in communities and the region Question 11: “As a result of the CYDS Initiative thus far, there have been increased regional-to-state and state-to-regional linkages.” Of the 78 respondents who returned the survey, 67% rated state-level efforts and 80% rated regional level efforts to Question 11. Overall respondents tended to agree that there have been increased regional-to-state and state-to-regional linkages. The overall mean response related to State-level effort was 2.83 and for Regional Effort was 2.81, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). (See Table 5.) The region with the highest mean related to state-level effort was Region 10 (3.50) where three of nine respondents strongly agreed with the statement. The regions with the highest mean related to regional effort were Region 10 (3.33), where four of nine respondents Strongly Agreed with the statement and Region 1 (3.14) where one respondent Strongly Agreed with the statement. 15
  • 25. Question 12: “The Regional CYDS Initiative has complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region.” Forty-five of the 78 respondents rated the state-level effort and 66 respondents rated the regional effort. Overall, both state and regional partners tended to agree with the statement for the regional effort that the regional CYDS Initiative has complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.84, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0), and for regional effort was 3.18, between Agree (3.0) and Strongly Agree (4.0). (See Table 5.) The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.79 compared to the state team response related to the state effort of 3.17. State respondents rated their effort higher than did the regional respondents. There was little difference in the way the two groups responded to the regional effort with the regional mean of 3.18 and the state mean of 3.20. There are obviously some differences here between how the respondents perceive the state-level effort in complementing and enhancing previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region versus how they see the regional effort to do so. Team members from the regions were less positive about state-level efforts to complement and enhance previously existing linkages in the communities and region through this CYDS Initiative. The region with the highest mean related to state-level effort was Region 10, where two of nine respondents strongly agreed with the statement. However, out of the ten regions with survey respondents, only four regions had a mean regional rating of 3 or greater for state-level effort. In rating regional effort, seven of the ten regions had a mean of 3 (Agree) or greater. The regions with the highest means related to regional effort were Regions 1, (3.71), 10 (3.56), 8 (3.50), 5 (3.33), and 2 (3.20), where 71.4%, 55.6%, 50.0%, 28.6%, and 40.0% of the respondents respectively strongly agreed with the statement. Capacity Building Assessment Questions • What approaches were utilized to develop the capacity of Regional CYDS teams? • To what degree were these approaches seen as relevant and effective? What approaches were utilized to develop the capacity of Regional CYDS teams? After the vision, purposes, and desired outcomes were developed by the State Partners Group, six significant events were led and facilitated by staff from School to Work and from School and Main, the consulting group which provided design work and technical assistance to the process. The purpose of these events was to introduce the concept of a Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System, allow regional representatives to explore the benefits of forming a regional CYDS partnership, and assist regional representatives in the first steps of asset mapping. Event One – Introducing the CYDS concept to key youth providers at the regional and local levels. A session was held in Macon on January 30, 2002 bringing together youth development practitioners from the 41 School to Work Partnerships within the state, Youth Councils under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and Regional Education Service Agencies (RESA). Regions participated as teams and explored the concept of a CYDS. The outcomes of 16
  • 26. this event included the initial development of regional support for the CYDS concept, the initial identification of interested parties from the regions, and the identification of individuals willing to serve as “regional champions” who were charged with the task of expanding regional team representation and participation. Event Two – “Mini-Summit” of state-level partners and potential and actual regional champions. A session held in Atlanta on February 13, 2002 provided an opportunity for state- level partners and regional representatives to explore areas of common interest, appropriate roles, and potential collaboration in moving forward the youth development initiative across Georgia. Outcomes of this event were a clearer understanding of the definition of youth development by state and regional partners and identification of potential roles for collaboration and resource sharing. Event Three – The Regional Sessions. Four regional sessions for teams of youth development professionals were held in four varying locations in March and June 2002. These sessions were intended to provide regional teams with their first substantive opportunity to consider how the concept of a CYDS could best serve their region’s youth. The sessions also provided the opportunity to use a tested asset or resource mapping tool to begin this process or build on any similar efforts already begun. Additionally, the sessions provided the opportunity for regions to consider an appropriate convening entity for the initiative. Outcomes of these sessions were detailed, substantive planning and goal setting by twelve of twelve regions and broad-based dissemination of the CYDS concept and specific benefits to be gained regionally and in partnership with state-level partners. Event Four – The Statewide Summit. The purpose of this culminating event was twofold. First it provided an opportunity for state-level partners and regional teams to share their work and experiences to date in building a CYDS within their jurisdictions. It also provided the opportunity to identify specific shared priorities that could be built upon in future months. The event was attended by 100 participants when only 60 were expected. The outcomes of the summit were the identification of specific progress made by regional teams, specific barriers, and innovative and concrete ideas for ongoing and focused areas of work. Event Five – Sustainability Institute. Held September 23-25, 2002, the Youth Development Institute was designed to address skill building, tools, and strategies needed to sustain the youth development system approach. Event Six – CYDS Regional Team Meeting. This session, held March 2-3, 2003, provided the first opportunity for regions to collectively share and discuss their work. Regional Teams were asked to present their Comprehensive Youth Development strategies and challenges regarding implementation and the progress to date. The regional partners in attendance from each region made a report about their region’s work, including a description of the strategy, reason for focusing on that strategy, identification of the system building and sustainability aspects of the strategy, tangible outcomes expected, and the biggest challenges they were facing. The most frequently expressed challenges and opportunities were then addressed in “Open Spaces” discussion groups. All participants had the opportunity to attend two different sessions to discuss their challenges and possible solutions, or to share successful strategies. 17
  • 27. Question 14: To what degree were these approaches seen as relevant and effective? Regional member respondents to the CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the following statement: “Our region was fully prepared for the Regional CYDS Initiative through the various regional and state meetings offered by the State School to Work Office and School and Main.” They could respond Strongly Agree (4.0), Agree (3.0), Disagree (2.0), or Strongly Disagree (1.0). Fifty-seven out of a possible 70 respondents (81%) provided ratings. The mean and number responding to this question are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Means for Questions 14 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment State-level Effort Regional Effort Overall State Regional Overall State Regional Mean Team Members Mean Team Members 14. Our region was fully prepared for the Regional CYDS Initiative through 2.54 2.54 the various regional and state meetings -- -- -- -- n=57 n=57 offered by the State School to Work Office and School and Main. Responses indicate that regional partners could go either way on agreeing or disagreeing with the statement that the individual regions were fully prepared for the regional CYDS Initiative through the various regional and state meetings that were offered. The overall mean response for all responding regions was 2.54, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). The three regions with the highest means - Region 10 (3.25), Region 4 (3.25), and Region 1 (3.14) - had 33.3%, 50.0%, and 42.9% strongly agreeing with the statement. Six of the remaining regions had an average mean between Agree (3.0) and Disagree (2.0), and one region had a mean between Disagree (2.0) and Strongly Disagree (1.0). One of the regions with the highest means, Region 1, had 7 responses to the question. Five of the seven respondents wrote additional comments regarding their strong previous collaboration efforts. They indicated their prior collaboration had prepared them for the experience, and the efforts of the School to Work Office and School and Main were helpful and provided support. Three of the five partners responding from Region 2 provided additional comments. Two indicated their level of preparation related to their prior collaborating experience; one acknowledged the helpfulness of state resources, and one respondent had very negative reactions to the role of School and Main. In Region 6, where four of six respondents provided a response, all four indicated they disagreed and provided additional comments that their region was not prepared “… not enough partners were able to attend the meetings - a few partners were ready but not the region – don’t think this happened in our region…” Three of nine respondents from Region 10 (a region with the highest mean response) provided comments questioning whether they were prepared. One indicated “not fully prepared, but it helped.” 18
  • 28. Interestingly, Region 11 had the highest response rate, 16 respondents, and also had the lowest mean, indicating they didn’t feel the efforts of School to Work and School and Main had fully prepared them. Five of the 16 provided additional comments. Four of the five were generally displeased: • “coordinating with no money, no guidelines...short implementation time frames...learned by trial and error…guidance to the state and region were minimal.” • “We did it, but with mostly local efforts and without guidelines in a timely manner.” • “Regional effort seemed to flounder.” • “Region still struggling to catch up and/or implement due largely to the lack of adequate preparation.” Organizing, Planning, and Implementing • Assessment Questions • What were the bases for planning in each region? • What approaches were chosen for implementing regional strategies? • What issues were addressed by each Regional CYDS Initiative? • What challenges did the regions face in implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative? • To what degree do regions perceive their approach to organizing, planning, and implementing have been effective? What were the bases for planning in each region? On the April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report, regions were asked to respond to a question: “What was the basis for planning in your region (e.g., data on youth, a vision, target audiences focus, School and Main)?” (Appendix C - Question 3). Five of the twelve regions responding indicated an analytical approach collecting either quantitative or qualitative data and/or studying data. Three regions mentioned a vision created in conjunction with one of the March 2002 regional meetings facilitated by School and Main. Three other regions discussed a collaborative process of developing a vision fueled by the collective experience of group members who have previously attended meetings and apparently been influenced by other sets of information. Region 5 discussed a systemic way of approaching a seamless Comprehensive Youth Development System, which is based on the mutual interests of community development, economic development, workforce development, and youth development. Two other regions, 7 and 10, have similar philosophies, but did not discuss it as a part of their response to this question on the April 15 Quarterly Report. What approaches were chosen for implementing regional strategies? Marilyn Akers, STW consultant, provided the following summary descriptions after the regional teams met in Dublin, Georgia, March 2-3, 2003. Regions were asked to report on their regional CYDS strategy, why they chose the strategy, and the system building and sustainability aspects of the strategy. Summaries are included for eleven of the twelve regions. At this point, Region 9 had not developed region strategies. 19
  • 29. Region 1 Youth Council Strategic Plan/Youth Summits/Leadership & Training The region established a regional partners group representing 15 counties and meets once a month to consider interagency planning, capacity building, training, and networking opportunities. The leadership team is working with the existing county Youth Councils (councils of young people, not WIA) to develop youth leadership and allow feedback from youth regarding regional plans/strategies. The results from a previous youth summit were incorporated into the regional work plan for the WIA Youth Council. A region-wide plan was developed based on an analysis of county-level Family Connection Partnership plans within the region. Common strategies and ideas were pulled out that relate to youth services and priorities. These priorities are high school/GED completion, increased post-secondary enrollment, expanding career awareness, and reducing substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco, and drugs). The immediate goal is to get service providers on the same page regarding youth development through cross training and promoting the same goals, values, and outcomes. Recently, joint training of 93 people was held for Juvenile Justice, Mental Health, Public Health, and other partners who do not regularly train together. Region 1 is also supporting youth leadership through mini-grants to county Youth Councils and supporting young people to attend the Georgia Teen Institute during summer 2003. Youth summits will continue to be held to elicit perceptions from youth and the results will be incorporated into partner decision making. Region 2 Sustained Regional Infrastructure and Youth Asset Approach The region established a 501(c)3 organization including partners from Public Health, K-12 education, Family Connection Partnership, and others. Each county has a youth/adult partnership focused on asset development (Search Institute 40 Developmental Assets). The regional team is planning an adult/youth summit – planned and organized by young people – in April 2003. The region is also providing small mini-grants to counties to assist in the communication and development of the regional infrastructure. Region 3 Youth Summits The region is planning county-level youth summits to identify perceptions, assets, and gaps in youth services (focusing on careers/substance abuse/healthy behaviors) to be followed by a regional youth summit to develop a region-wide plan and strategies. Leadership in the region will be provided by WIA, Family Connection Partnership, and Public Health. Region 4 Regional Infrastructure Thirty-two partners have formed a regional infrastructure to look at how to sustain a system that supports youth development for the long term. The regional partnership includes leadership from the Regional Development Council, WIA, Juvenile Justice, Mental Health, Family Connection Partnership, Labor, Community Affairs, the technical college, Department of Family and Children Services, non-profit organizations, faith-based community, youth organizations, and business. Region 4 recognizes the need for a long-term infrastructure and communication regarding youth. Prior to the CYDS concept, the region already had the vision for getting organized around youth services. Funding served as a catalyst to jump-start planning efforts. Wellsys Corporation is the contractor providing strategic analysis and technical support for Region 4. To date, the region has established a governance structure by forming an executive committee (leadership team), outlined financial policies, compiled existing strategic plans, conducted focus groups to identify assets and gaps in services working with existing events, and worked with youth to distribute surveys. A Regional Youth Advisory Council is planning a youth retreat. 20
  • 30. Region 5 GA Academy for Economic Development and Youth Council Leadership Region 5 has expanded membership of the WIA Youth Council to include new partners and has focused on developing strategies that support the connection between education, workforce development, and economic development. The region has been focusing in all areas on improvement, but was not working together systemically. In partnership with the Georgia Academy for Economic Development, a region-wide summit for system building will be conducted with the intent of developing a long-term process for communicating and focusing on youth development. Representation will include 15 person teams from the 12 counties in the region with an expected attendance of 250 people. The summit is a relationship building effort to increase regional partner leadership, ensure involvement of families and youth, and communicate regarding the CYDS effort and outcomes. The CYDS Initiative has given regional partners an opportunity to think differently and work together differently. The regional team has used CYDS financial resources to pull together existing strategic plans to analyze common elements. The region plans to use the WIA Youth Council as the long-term vehicle for sustainability. Region 6 United Way 211 System Enhancement Region 6, which represents an eleven county area, is building a system that brings together the common elements between education, workforce development, and economic development. The CYDS Strategic Plan includes an assessment of youth services, the development of a resources inventory, and a partner directory. The region is using this information to enhance the existing United Way 211 system in Macon/Bibb to cover the entire region. Wellsys Corporation is the contractor providing strategic planning, research, and technical support. Partners include Public Health, Communities in Schools, Family Connection Partnership, United Way, Middle Georgia Technical College, Volunteer Macon, and others. Ford Motor Company provides sponsorship and maintenance of a website that was developed in partnership with America’s Promise. An asset-based survey is in the process of being conducted to focus on positive aspects of community and to identify demographics, challenges, services used, and barriers to the use of existing services. The survey will include responses from 100 participants from each of the eleven counties. Mini-grants are being provided to the each county through the Family Connection Partnership to conduct the survey. Following the data collection and analysis, a youth summit for regional adult partners and youth will be conducted to promote results, develop a strategic plan, and launch actions. Region 7 Geographic Information System – Tool for Community Decision Making Region 7 is a diverse region, which includes five of the poorest counties in the state and one of the top five wealthiest counties in the state. The regional philosophy includes the belief that youth development equals community development equals economic development. In collaboration with the Regional Development Center, partners are working to develop a region- wide Geographic Information System (GIS) to analyze needs and gaps in services, target resources in high need areas, and develop collaborative solutions to common issues. Region 7 has developed a website and brochure to market availability of this tool in the community. Family Connection Partnership will provide leadership in conducting sessions with families, youth, and local leadership (elected and service providers) using maps to explain the GIS system and how it can be used to identify and address community assets and assist in future decision making. Region 7 is also conducting a survey of 8,000 youth in school systems across the region using the established Search Institute 40 Developmental Assets Youth Survey. Distribution of these surveys will be stratified based on each county’s student population. Region 8 IMPACT Youth Leadership 21
  • 31. This sixteen county region already had an established youth council (young people, not WIA) called IMPACT, which provides youth leadership opportunities. This group has provided the leadership for CYDS in Region 8 and has expanded to cover the entire region. Partners in this regional collaborative include WIA, Family Connection Partnership, Mental Health, Public Health, DFACS, Juvenile Justice, New Horizons, and others. Through the CYDS effort, the region has conducted an asset mapping process to analyze the existing strategic plans of regional partners for the purpose of identifying common goals and needs. The region, through the Youth Council, is focusing on high school completion and support for healthy behaviors. The region is working to meet the challenges and address the differences that exist between the smaller, rural counties and the larger counties, including Muscogee, which includes the city of Columbus. Region 10 Certified Literate Community Program Region-wide Region 10 built upon an existing health services task force, which expanded to include agencies that represent additional community services and education. The group has changed its name to the Regional Partners Network and has grown to include 40 partner organizations. The Regional Development Center is coordinating and hosting monthly meetings, has established a communications listserve and link to partners, and is the conduit for providing information to local governments regarding CYDS implementation. The group is focusing on community development strategies that include education, workforce development, and economic development goals. The Regional Partners Network has established a long-term goal to develop a region-wide Certified Literate Community Program (CCLP), the first in the State of Georgia. The region has developed a logo and motto – Believe. Read. Succeed. Three of the counties in the region are already CCLP certified and will provide support and mentoring to the surrounding counties. The Regional Partners Network has established a formal governance structure based on the CCLP program and has also developed short-term goals to achieve during the longer-term CCLP process. To further build relationships and capacity, a region-wide assessment will be conducted and a web-based resource inventory will be developed. The Regional Partners Network is also conducting focus groups in each county to identify needs, gaps, and services. In addition, the partners will analyze youth perceptions of services based on the Search Institute’s 40 Developmental Assets Youth Survey. A region-wide newsletter has been developed to inform local elected officials and other partners regarding CYDS implementation. Region 11 211 Information and Referral System and Regional PALS Prior to CYDS, Region 11 recognized the need for a region-wide youth development initiative and had formed an informal governance strategy. With the implementation of CYDS, the group has expanded and formed a regional network, called PALS (Partners and Agency Leaders). The group has established formal governance policies and works together on budgeting, strategic planning, communication, and implementation issues regarding services for youth in the region. The PALS network has conducted an asset mapping process and analysis that is being used to develop a region-wide 211 System and Information and Referral System (website) for the region. The PALS network has also supported the formation of a youth leadership coalition and will send teams to the Georgia Teen Institute. These youth teams will lead local county youth summits that will culminate with a regional youth summit. Region 12 Website and Services Matrix Region-wide Region 12 is focused on the development of a regional infrastructure to support and sustain youth development. The first priority is on the development of a service matrix and region-wide website that identifies programs, resources, and services available for youth and families. Through the regional partner leadership, community outreach and training will be conducted to 22
  • 32. inform the public, agencies, local governments, and partners on the availability and use of the system. The Workforce Investment Board/Youth Council will host and sustain the website after development and implementation. What issues were addressed by each Regional CYDS Initiative? Review of the plans submitted by each region reveal some common elements related to their goals and priorities. • Education was addressed by seven of the twelve regions including Regions 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11. • Youth Health Issues/Decreasing At-Risk Behaviors was addressed by seven of the twelve regions including Regions 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11. • System/Infrastructure Development was addressed by ten of the twelve regions including Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. What challenges were faced by the regions in implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative? Lead contacts were asked on the April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report ‘What challenges has your region faced in creating a regional system to accomplish desired outcomes for youth and how have you handled them? (Appendix C - Question 2). In response, most answers dealt more with the challenges than with their resolution. Many of the challenges seemed situation specific, depending on the nature of the regional approach, where they are in the collaborative process, and, in some cases, how far ahead they have planned. For instance, Region 5 has taken a systemic approach to addressing youth development nested within the issues of workforce development, community development, and economic development. It has been challenged by the size of the task and finding continued financial support for a task that is bigger than single program sponsorship. Two regions implementing surveys found the process of securing approval and having to work through a local infrastructure challenging. Turf guarding was also mentioned within the context of developing an understanding for the real purpose of the Regional CYDS Initiative. Region 4 acknowledged the timeline posed major challenges in trying to meet a specific grant deadline for a strategic plan without adequate time to conduct a regional assessment. While many of the challenges were situation specific, there were two clusters of problems experienced by multiple regions that relate to the nature of the overall mission of the initiative and the continued success of managing the initiative: 1. Partner representation at the table. Three regions, 1, 10, and 12 talked of the challenge of insuring that all the right partners were engaged. Four regions, 2, 3, 11, and 12 mentioned the challenge of meeting attendance and having consistent participation in meetings and in the overall regional initiative. 2. Grant management issues. Four regions, 7, 8, 11, and 12 mentioned time, bureaucracy, red tape, and working with fiscal agents as challenges. They cited instances and issues, such as receiving guidelines in a timely manner, being able to pay for contracted services in a timely way, or not having approval and timely payment available for a survey process which had involved extensive local and regional coordination – a situation which led to the curtailment of a major regional initiative that had been extensively legitimized. 23
  • 33. Question 13: To what degree do regions perceive their approach to organizing, planning, and implementing have been effective? Regional respondents to the CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the following statement: “The approach our region took to organizing, planning, and implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative has been effective.” They could respond Strongly Agree (4.0), Agree (3.0), Disagree (2.0), or Strongly Disagree (1.0). The mean and number of respondents to this question are shown in Table 7. Table 7. Means for Questions 13 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment State-level Effort Regional Effort Overall State Regional Overall State Regional Mean Team Members Mean Team Members 13. The approach our region took to organizing, planning, and 3.08 3.08 -- -- -- -- implementing the Regional CYDS n=60 n=60 Initiative has been effective. There was a possibility of 70 responses from regional participants representing 10 regions; 60 of the respondents rated this statement. The overall mean response for all responding regions was 3.08, between Agree (3.0) and Strongly Agree (4.0). The three regions with the highest means, Region 2 (3.75), Region 1 (3.71), and Region 10 (3.33) had 60.0%, 71.4%, and 55.6% respectively strongly agreeing with the statement. Half of the regions had a regional mean rating of 3.0 (Agree) or higher. Outcomes Assessment Questions • To what degree do regional and state participants perceive CYDS desired outcomes are being achieved? • What accomplishments and outcomes do regional partner groups cite? To what degree do regional and state participants perceive CYDS desired outcomes are being achieved? Five questions (3-7) on the CYDS Perceived Outcome Assessment survey addressed fairly specific outcomes for the State Partners Group and for the Regional CYDS Initiative. Additionally, one question (#10) addressed overall perceived system outcomes. [Other questions addressed in the Partners and Partnerships section of this report also apply to outcomes, but are not discussed here.] Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with each of the statements given below. They could respond Strongly Agree (4.0), Agree (3.0), Disagree (2.0), or Strongly Disagree (1.0). Each question will be presented individually and is summarized in Table 8. Table 8. Means for Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment 24
  • 34. State-level Effort Regional Effort Overall State Regional Overall State Regional Mean Team Members Mean Team Members 3. The relevant CYDS partner groups 2.71 2.79 2.60 2.80 have designed, promoted, and made 2.65 2.29 possible the joint training and n=55 n=7 n=48 n=61 n=5 n=56 development of staff. 4. A Youth Development resource 2.41 2.81 2.80 2.82 2.44 2.67 matrix has been developed to guide n=45 n=6 n=39 n=54 n=5 n=49 CYDS planning and resource allocation. 5. The CYDS Initiative has provided a directory of Youth Development services, 2.32 2.00 2.36 2.82 3.00 2.81 opportunities, and supports. n=46 n=7 n=39 n=57 n=5 n=52 6. The CYDS Initiative has provided a Youth Development calendar of 2.28 1.71 2.37 2.47 2.10 2.50 activities, events, and grants training. n=50 n=7 n=43 n=61 n=5 n=56 7. The CYDS Initiative has resulted in blended funding for the purpose of 2.36 2.14 2.40 2.47 2.25 2.48 achieving desired youth outcomes. n=50 n=7 n=43 n=59 n=4 n=55 10. As a result of the CYDS Initiative thus far, system changes have been 2.34 2.57 2.30 2.58 3.00 2.54 observed. n=47 n=7 n=40 n=62 n=5 n=57 Question 3: “The relevant CYDS partner groups have designed, promoted, and made possible the joint training and development of staff.” Fifty-five respondents provided ratings for state-level effort; sixty-one respondents provided ratings for regional-level effort. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.65 and for regional effort was 2.79, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). The regional effort was perceived slightly more positively. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.71 compared to the state team response related to the state effort of 2.29, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort much more positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 2.80 compared to a state response of 2.60. Again, the regional respondents perceived more impact in this area than did the state respondents. As shown in Appendix F, the region with the highest mean related to state-level effort was Region 10 (3.17). The regions with the highest means related to regional effort were Regions 1 (3.29) and 10 (3.29), where 42.9% and 22.2%, respectively, strongly agreed with the statement. Three regions (6, 7, and 10) had a mean rating for state-level effort of 3 or higher, agree to strongly agree. Four regions (1, 2, 7, and 10) had a mean representing agree to strongly agree for the regional effort. Question 4: “A Youth Development resource matrix has been developed to guide CYDS planning and resource allocation.” 25
  • 35. Of the 78 respondents who returned the survey, only 45 rated state-level effort and 54 rated region-level effort for this question. The overall mean response related to State-level effort was 2.44 and for regional effort was 2.81, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). Again, the regional effort was perceived more positively. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.41 compared to the state response related to the state effort of 2.67, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort less positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 2.82 compared to a state response of 2.80. There was little difference in the two group’s perceptions on this question related to regional effort. The region with the highest mean related to state-level effort and the only region with a mean representing agreement with the statement was Region10 (3.00). The region with the highest mean related to regional effort was Region 1, (3.33) where 2 of 7 (28.6%) strongly agreed with the statement. Three other regions (6, 10, and 11) had mean regional ratings of 3.00, indicating agreement. Question 5: “The CYDS Initiative has provided a directory of Youth Development services, opportunities, and supports.” Forty-six respondents provided a state-level rating and 57 provided a regional-level rating. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.32 and for regional effort was 2.82, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). The regional effort was perceived more positively. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.36 compared to the state response of 2.00, and thus both disagreed that the initiative has provided a directory related to Youth Development, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort more positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 2.81, compared to the state response of 3.00 and thus the state respondents perceived regional efforts slightly more positively. None of the regions had a mean that even reached 3.00 (Agree) for state-level effort. The two regions with the highest means related to regional effort were Region 1 and Region 11 with means of 3.17. (See Appendix F.) Question 6: “The CYDS Initiative has provided a Youth Development calendar of activities, events, and grants funding.” Fifty survey respondents rated the state-level effort and 61 rated the region-level effort. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.28 and for regional effort was 2.47, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0) and thus both state and regional respondents disagreed that the initiative resulted in a Youth Development calendar of activities, events, and training; and, again, the regional effort was perceived somewhat more positively. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.37 compared to the state response of 1.71, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort more positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 2.50 compared to a state response of 2.10, with the regional respondents perceiving their effort more positively than did the state respondents. 26
  • 36. As shown in Appendix F, only one region, Region 4, had a mean related to state-level effort that reached 3.00 (Agree). Two regions, 1 and 8, had means of 3.00 related to regional effort. Question 7: “The CYDS Initiative has resulted in blended funding for the purpose of achieving desired youth outcomes.” Of the 78 respondents to the Perceived Outcome Assessment survey, 59 rated the state-level effort and 59 rated the regional-level effort. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.36 and for regional effort was 2.47, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0). Thus respondents disagree that the initiative has resulted in blended funding. The regional effort was perceived slightly more positively. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.40 compared to the state response of 2.14, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort more positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 2.48 compared to a state response of 2.25, with the regional respondents perceiving their effort more positively than did the state respondents As shown in Appendix F, the region with the highest mean related to state-level effort was Region 10 with a mean of 3.20. The regions with the highest means related to regional effort were Regions 10 (3.28) where five of nine respondents strongly agreed with the statement and Region 1 (3.17) where two of seven respondents strongly agreed with the statement. One state-level respondent commented, “The CYDS Initiative has not had enough relationship development and specific successes to have reached this higher level of system building [at state or local level] although some isolated examples may exist.” Question 10: “As a result of the CYDS Initiative thus far, system changes have been observed.” Forty-seven of the possible 78 survey respondents rated the state-level effort and 62 rated the regional-level effort. The overall mean response related to state-level effort was 2.34 and for regional effort was 2.58, between Disagree (2.0) and Agree (3.0); the respondents disagree that the state effort has resulted in system changes and could go either way (disagree or agree) that changes have been observed at the regional level. The regional effort is perceived more positively. The mean regional response related to state-level effort was 2.30 compared to the state team response of 2.57, with the regional respondents perceiving state-level effort less positively than did the state respondents. The mean regional response related to regional effort was 2.54 compared to a state response of 3.00, with the state respondents perceiving regional efforts more positively than did the regional respondents and agreeing that system changes are being observed at the regional level (n= 5). None of the regions had means for the state-level effort which reached 3.00, the agree level. Only one region, Region 10, had a mean that reached 3.00 for the regional effort, and three of nine respondents strongly agreed. (See Appendix F.) 27
  • 37. Sustainability Assessment Questions • To what degree are School to Work funds being leveraged into additional funding for youth development initiatives? • To what degree do regional partners feel the regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable? • What do regional and state partners see as the future of the CYDS Initiative and what recommendations do they offer for insuring the vision of the CYDS Initiative and insuring that youth become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through successful participation in family and community life? To what degree are School to Work funds being leveraged into additional funding for youth development initiatives? Regional lead contacts were asked to respond to the following question on the April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report: “To what extent are you receiving funds from other sources (WIA, Tech Prep, 21st Century Learning Grants, city and county funds, private organizations, individual donors, etc.) to extend or link initiatives for greater outreach?” (Appendix C- Question 7). Six of the twelve regions responded “none” or not applicable to the question. Three regions cited in-kind contributions, including support from partner agencies that allowed, supported, and even encouraged their employees to be heavily involved, the sharing of a web site by WIA, and graphic design support from the Department of Community Affairs and the Department of Industry Trade and Tourism. Region 3 shared that Fulton County was leveraging its WIA funds into county funding; Regions 1 and 4 cited the Regional Mental Health Board and Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities/Addiction Disorders funding local youth councils; Region 5 is sharing a $50,000 planning grant from the Workforce Investment Board and, through Family Connection, a $20,550 grant from the Governor’s Office on Developmental Disabilities. Region 6 has a small grant from Bibb County Family Connection. Question 15 from Perceived Outcome Assessment survey: To what degree do regional partners feel the Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable? Respondents to the CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment survey were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the following statement: “The system being established through our Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable and will allow us to more adequately insure that youth in the region will become healthy, educated, employable, and 28
  • 38. connected through successful participation in family and community life.” They could respond Strongly Agree (4.0), Agree (3.0), Disagree (2.0), or Strongly Disagree (1.0). Table 9 reports the mean and number responding. Table 9. Means for Question 15 on the Perceived Outcome Assessment State-level Effort Regional Effort Overall State Regional Overall State Regional Mean Team Members Mean Team Members 15. The system being established through our Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable and will allow us to more adequately insure that youth in the region will become healthy, 3.13 3.13 -- -- -- -- educated, employable, and connected through n=57 n=57 successful participation in family and community life. Fifty-seven respondents from 10 regions answered this question. The overall mean response was 3.13, between Agree (3.0) and Strongly Agree (4.0) meaning ─ across the state ─ respondents agree that a sustainable regional system in support of youth development is being put in place. As shown in Appendix F, the regions with the highest means were Region10 (3.44) where five of nine respondents strongly agreed with the statement, Region 1 (3.43) where four of seven respondents strongly agreed, Region 5 (3.40) where two of seven respondents strongly agreed, and Region 11 (3.04) where four of sixteen respondents strongly agreed. Eight of the ten regions participating in the survey had mean ratings of 3.0 or greater indicating Agree (3.0) to Strongly Agree (4.0). Of the 57 respondents, 83.2% either agree or strongly agree that the CYDS is sustainable in their regions. Only one respondent strongly disagreed with the statement. Only two regions, Region 4 (2.75) and Region 6 (2.50) indicated by the mean rating that CYDS might not be sustainable. What do regional and state partners see as the future of the CYDS Initiative, and what recommendations do they offer for insuring the vision of the CYDS Initiative and insuring that youth become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through successful participation in family and community life? There were two sources of information for this question: (1) the April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report and (2) interviews with the State Partners Group. April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report When regional lead contacts were asked “What do you see as the future of the CYDS Initiative?” there was a general expression of optimism that the efforts of the initiative, or some level of the effort, would continue regardless of the presence of the STW funding. Regions 1, 2, 5, and 10 sound confident and autonomous and have concrete plans regarding next steps. Region 29
  • 39. 5 acknowledges the need for continued funding from some source in order to continue its broad- based effort. Four of the regions addressed the future of the Regional CYDS Initiative in terms of what is needed for it to continue or in terms of state and regional leadership for the initiative. Their comments are worthy of consideration: • “Without someone out there beating the path, making people work together for a common cause, it is not going to work. Too many organizations have their own policies, procedures, and goals to follow in order to maintain funding. The ideas of being creative and working outside of the usual realm of the organization is too difficult without being continually prodded…without someone bringing those organizations together, it is not going to happen….so there has to be glue to hold them together…once this initiative is gone, that glue may be gone too.” (Region 7) • “…we are hopeful that the State Partners Group will continue providing leadership in this area. As this group has articulated, we too, believe that to be successful in creating meaningful change in Georgia, CYDS efforts at the local, regional, and state level must all be connected...Because our work in the region is so new, continued financial support must be identified to truly sustain our efforts and achieve the strategies outlined in our plans…we plan on building all of our strategies into the Youth Council [Workforce Investment Board] …broadening the membership on our Youth Council will then be key for implementation of our plan.” (Region 5) • “The need for Youth Strategies is still here. Can CYDS adapt to be the major player for Youth Development? It could be the major player. PALS [Partners and Agency Leaders] still has the opportunity to be the conduit for youth activities: Behavioral Health; DJJ; SIA, Family Connection. CYDS could provide over-sight to youth activities.” (Region 11) • “Incorporated into WIA Youth Council activities.” (Region 12) Interviews with State Partners Group Sustainability was a major concern of the State Partners Group from the beginning – both sustainability of their own group, supporting CYDS as a needed concept, and of the Regional CYDS Initiative. • “The State Partners Group is a result of local pressure. Local people said ‘it’s difficult – why don’t you get your act together…should they continue to meet…not sure.” • “Support of the partnership is a function in itself…could partners contribute to funding an intermediary – a facilitator…should explore Regional Development Centers…the strength, same as for Family Connection, will be the grassroots impetus…question is ‘who can make this happen?’….says it must be legislated.” • “Hope the state leadership team will be re-energized. We’re lacking some leadership; [one leader’s] departure, and poor timing of [another leader] being asked to convene the group, has left the group leaderless.” • “If it [CYDS Initiative] doesn’t work, they may go back to their silos. I think we may be beyond that.” 30
  • 40. • “Nurturing should be the main focus now. We’ve been looking for a home since its’ inception. I thought it might be Family Connection…I wanted/was willing to accept the State Workforce Investment Board, but current proposed legislation, which has not gone to the Senate yet, negates the Youth Councils…could take on its own shape in a Workforce Investment Board but Family Connection needs to be a part of it. Needs to be nurtured a while longer. If we let go September 30 [03], there may be 4-5 partners who will sustain, others no. People need to report to someone.” Discussion of Findings Overall discussion of findings will be framed in the six focus areas of assessment: • Vision and Goals • Partners and Partnerships • Capacity Building • Organizing, Planning, and Implementing • Outcomes • Sustainability As a quick reference, Table 10 summarizes means for each question on the Perceived Outcome Assessment survey, clustered to correspond with the six focus areas of this assessment for state and regional effort, by the respondent group, either state or region. The total number responding to each item is also provided. Table 10. Summary of Means for Perception of State and Regional Effort on the Perceived Outcome Assessment Perception of State Perception of Q. Effort Regional Effort Focus Area Regional State Regional State # Members Team Members Team N=70 N=8 N=70 N=8 Vision and Goals – framework, 1 2.96 3.00 3.08 3.40 philosophy, goals, definitions n=54 n=7 n=63 n=5 Vision and Goals – desired outcomes for 2 2.87 3.00 3.05 3.00 youth n=53 n=7 n=63 n=5 Vision and Goals – addressed both 8 2.85 3.29 3.05 3.40 youth and system outcomes n=46 n=7 n=61 n=5 Vision and Goals – youth and 9 2.44 2.29 2.89 3.40 community participation n=43 n=7 n=61 n=5 Partners & Partnerships – increased 11 2.80 3.00 2.79 3.00 linkages n=46 n=7 n=58 n=5 Partners & Partnerships – CYDS 12 2.79 3.17 3.18 3.20 enhanced current linkages and efforts n=39 n=6 n=61 n=5 Capacity Building – region prepared 14 2.54 n=57 Organizing, Planning, Implementing – 13 3.08 regional approach effective n=60 Outcomes – joint training 3 2.71 2.29 2.80 2.60 31
  • 41. Perception of State Perception of Q. Effort Regional Effort Focus Area Regional State Regional State # Members Team Members Team N=70 N=8 N=70 N=8 Vision and Goals – framework, 1 2.96 3.00 3.08 3.40 philosophy, goals, definitions n=54 n=7 n=63 n=5 n=48 n=7 n=56 n=5 Outcomes – resource matrix 4 2.41 2.67 2.82 2.80 n=39 n=6 n=49 n=5 Outcomes – youth directory 5 2.36 2.00 2.81 3.00 n=39 n=7 n=52 n=5 Outcomes – calendar of events 6 2.37 1.71 2.50 2.10 n=43 n=7 n=56 n=5 Outcomes – blended funding 7 2.40 2.14 2.48 2.25 n=43 n=7 n=55 n=4 Outcomes – system changes observed 10 2.30 2.57 2.54 3.00 n=40 n=7 n=57 n=5 Sustainability – regional effort 15 3.13 sustainable n=57 Overall Means 2.62 2.59 2.86 2.94 In addition to Table 10, written respondent comments on the survey may provide further insight into progress on the Regional CYDS Initiative as perceived by stakeholders. Unedited comments are reported for Questions 1 through 15 and for “other comments” in Appendix G. Vision and Goals On the CYDS Perceived Outcome Assessment survey, questions 1, 2, 8, and 9 addressed vision, goals, and guiding philosophy for the initiative. These four questions had the highest means of almost all questions, indicating respondents agree that the CYDS Initiative has • provided a Youth Development framework, philosophy, goals, and definitions which are shared by relevant partners; • promoted a common set of desired outcomes which are shared by partners; • focused on both outcomes for youth and on system changes to support youth outcomes; and • made decisions about communities and youth with community and youth involvement ─ at the regional level (note: but not at the state level). The means of the respondents from the regions were almost always lower for state-level efforts than those from the state offices themselves. Some respondent comments related to these questions suggest the vision, goals, and desired outcomes might be clarified and made more specific because they were seen as “…very broad…concept good but clear direction or guidance from state is sometimes slow or lacking....” The concern expressed in the very beginning stages of this initiative that the state needs to get its act together may still be reflected in this somewhat 32
  • 42. lower assessment of state-level efforts by regional respondents. It is noted particularly that respondents do not agree that state-level efforts or decisions affecting youth and communities have been made with youth and community participation. In most areas related to vision and goals, state respondents saw their own effort more positively and also perceived most regional efforts about the same or higher than did the regional partners. This might suggest the need for continued efforts to regularly communicate between the state and regional levels until all partners have time to assimilate and make the vision and principles their own and have reached general understanding of and consensus on the framework, philosophy, goals, and direction. Further, the vision of the State Partners Group that the Regional CYDS Initiative might lead to regional intermediaries was never articulated to regional groups, according to the written records of trainings. Perhaps the thought and the practice might have been perceived as threatening or overwhelming, and thus the decision at the state level to allow this status as intermediaries at the regional level to evolve was appropriate. On the other hand, clear articulation of this vision might lead to more regions actually becoming intermediaries and stepping up to take the lead. Partners and Partnerships The status of partners, their level of involvement, sector representation, linkages, and the relationships between the Regional CYDS partnerships and other collaborative efforts was the focus of a number of analyses and very important. The dysfunction and duplication of various agency and group efforts at coordinating youth development activities and services was one of the catalysts for initiating the Regional CYDS Initiative. There is close to agreement across the state that there have been increased regional-to-state and state-to-regional linkages. Regional partners do not perceive increased linkages as positively either for state efforts or for their own regional efforts as do the state partners. But regional partners did more clearly perceive that the Regional CYDS Initiative complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region. Both of these findings represent a desired outcome of this CYDS Initiative and are important to the underlying assumption to create a collaborative in support of youth development. Without available information about the valid number of potential partners and their presence in each of the sectors, incomplete information about the number of partners in three regions, and little information relative to meaningful involvement, conclusions are premature. However, there are some statements that can be made. • Across all 24 named sectors and “others,” there was broad representation and involvement. Nine regions name 277 partners; almost 60% of them were heavily involved in CYDS activities, 21% were somewhat involved, and 19% participated in name only. This level of involvement is probably consistent with practical experience related to collaboration. In any collaborative effort, there will be a core group that is heavily involved, others less involved, and some who come to a meeting the first time, put their names on the list, and then realize they are not matched with the issue and the task and assume minimal involvement. • The number of sectors represented within and across the regions likely correlates positively with the potential numbers who are available to participate and be involved. For instance, there is a Family Connection collaborative in almost all the counties, and Family Connection is represented more than any other sector. 33
  • 43. • The lead agencies that were present for the origination of the Regional CYDS Initiative are present in most regions and heavily involved. All of these agencies represent sources of funds which might be allocated at the regional or county levels. o Family Connection – all but two regions o Public Health – all but two regions o Department of Juvenile Justice – all but two regions o School to Work – all but three regions o Workforce Investment Act Area Representative – all but three regions o Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities/Addictive Disorders – all but five regions • We have no record of youth representation, a weakness of this assessment sector design. Many regions spoke of youth involvement, however. • The sector “Community Employer” was only represented in three regions indicating a lack of involvement from the business community unless some of the Youth Council Representatives were business-related. This assessment sector design did not allow for knowing the affiliation of the Youth Council Representative. • There was much discussion, recorded in qualitative data, regarding the difficulty of securing significant involvement from the K-12 education sector; however, the quantitative data collected from the quarterly reports and the assessment survey do not fully support the lack of educator involvement at the regional level. (Four regions did not indicate educator involvement.) Regardless, youth development in Georgia and elsewhere must include significant and meaningful involvement for public, K-12 education. Positive youth indicators (educated, healthy, connected, and employable) are underpinned by student success in school. • No sector is present and/or active in every region. It must be acknowledged that involvement or lack of involvement, in some cases, is personality and situation–related rather than an indictment of the agency or organization. Another mitigating factor relates to the skill of the regional collaborative in fully engaging all members in meaningful activity. Meaningful involvement leads to relationship building that is necessary for sustainable collaboration. The area of Partners and Partnerships needs continuing study along with such related concepts as collaboration, meaningful involvement, and turf protection. Because of the importance of this area of assessment, the three regions that provided an incomplete answer to the request for partner listings and level of involvement ratings should be asked to resubmit the information (Regions 1, 6, and 8). If privacy issues were the reason for some regions not responding completely, the regions could be allowed to identify partners by number, giving a sector code and level of involvement for each number. Capacity Building Though documented records show a steady sequence of capacity building events, the overall mean on the Perceived Outcome Assessment survey related to the regions being “fully prepared for the CYDS Initiative” was one of the lower means (2.54), in the middle of disagreeing and agreeing. Only the regional partners responded to this question. Thirty-four percent of the regional partners either disagreed or strongly disagreed that their region was fully prepared. Why? Time has been cited as a principle factor. Comments from respondents cite lack of time to 34
  • 44. fully involve key partners and plan and carry out a strategic plan before funding ends. It takes time to feel comfortable with new efforts and processes. A number of comments indicated some members were not able to attend the regional capacity building sessions. Another factor contributing to this lower mean was the fact that the assessment question was stated as: “…fully prepared for the Regional CYDS initiative through the various regional and state meetings offered by the State School to Work Office and School and Main.” Some commented they were prepared because of prior collaborative experience, regional leadership, and good local communication. Conversely, those individuals who expressed negative feelings cited lack of state support, including general guidance for the grant and support for policy changes to facilitate blended funding. Further, three comments were specifically negative about School and Main. Organizing, Planning, and Implementing Regional respondents felt positive about their approach to organizing, planning, and implementing the regional initiatives. Whether the regional approaches will lead to sustainable system building is yet to be seen. Over time, regions might judge their own efforts by the thoughts expressed by some visionary State Partners. When selected State Partners were asked in an interview, “How will you know if the Regional CYDS Initiative has been successful?” three of the six partners specifically mentioned having a good plan developed by a partnership of the right players, having a framework of governance, and doing those things which lead to sustainability rather than one- shot efforts. All of these are factors of organizing, planning, and implementing. Two partners talked of the long-term ability of a network of regional partners to be flexible and “nimble” for quick response to opportunities. One partner specifically talked of strong articulated regional groups that could shape state policy. Conversely, when the State Partners were asked “What would be indicators to you that a region just ‘didn’t get it’?” the key responses included: • “Doing activities – one time – with young people that don’t lead to system-building and building capacity” • Counties operating independently • Doling out money to county people for activities rather than activities leading to regional partnership • One-shot programming • Wanting to do local programming • Only collecting information, and doing nothing else. There are regions doing the things envisioned as leading to success – developing a framework of governance, engaging the right players in partnership, and developing plans which can be implemented. There are also regions doing activities with young people where it is unknown the extent to which they will lead to sustainability. Some regions are also using their funding for mini-grants to counties. There are regions implementing rather large projects. Only time will tell if these activities will lead to a sustainable regional partnership that foster positive change for youth. Outcomes Overall, the means for specific outcome-related questions are lower than means for other questions, perhaps indicating that outcomes have not caught up with other areas that typically 35
  • 45. come first with collaboratives, such as guiding philosophy, goals, and capacity building. Means of both regional and state responses related to regional effort are higher than responses related to state-level effort. Apparently, it is perceived more progress is being made at the regional level, which is the focus of the initiative. However, the call for state-level action and system change was one of the primary original catalysts for the Regional CYDS Initiative. The six specific desired outcomes referenced in the perception survey are different in nature. A resource matrix, a youth development directory, and a calendar of events are projects requiring cooperation, sharing of information, and manpower; they might be called short-term outcomes. The joint training and development of staff call for interagency planning, shared goals, and short- term sharing of resources; they might be called intermediate outcomes. At least one region, Region 1, has been heavily involved in joint training. Blended funding for the purpose of achieving desired youth outcomes requires interagency and interpersonal trust in addition to interagency assistance in overcoming the fiscal restrictions; it can be considered a long-term outcome. At least one region, Region 10, has successfully blended funding ─ using School to Work, Public Health Youth Development, and Family Connection funds. Region 1 also speaks of some initial efforts at blending funding. Five respondents from the state did agree that they were seeing some system outcomes at the regional level; their impression is positive. Sustainability The overall mean related to Question 15 is 3.13, indicating the region respondents agree the system being established through their Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable and will allow them to more adequately insure that youth in the region will become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through participation in family and community life. Reflecting on the responses of the lead contacts on the April 15 Quarterly Report and comments made by members of the State Partners Group during individual interviews, there were some general trends: • There is general and specific momentum at the regional level, definite commitment to the need for collaborative effort around youth development, and efforts begun or enhanced by the Regional CYDS Initiative. • There is acknowledged need for state leadership for regional collaboration, for the model and direction it establishes, the accountability it commands, the cohesion it brings, and the intangible “glue” it provides. • There is concern about an entity to convene and coordinate state leadership, where state leadership will reside, and a source of money to support the coordinating function. • There is a clear need and responsibility to continue to nurture a process which has not had time to fulfill its potential. Regional Differences It became increasingly evident as data for each of the 15 questions of the CYDS Perceived Outcome Assessment survey was analyzed that some regions consistently answered differently than others. Tables displaying data segmented by regions are provided in Appendix F. These data are helpful for analysis by regional partnerships and can be useful for planning and improvement purposes. 36
  • 46. In rating perceived outcomes of state-level effort, Region 10 had one of the highest means (above the Agree level) nine times, with Regions 1, 2, 4, and 6 being at that level one or two times. In rating perceived outcomes of regional effort, Region 1 had one of the highest means (above the Agree level) fourteen times and Region 10 thirteen times, Region 2 following with eight times, Regions 5, 6, and 8 with six times and Region 7 five times. What might account for regional differences? Two possible explanations are evident or tentatively suggested in the data: 1. tenure of collaborative effort, and 2. attention to relationship building and structure formation. The Regional CYDS Initiative was a timely opportunity for several regions that were already collaborating around youth development. One respondent described this new opportunity as “icing on the cake.” While not a direct question, several sources of information indicate regions 1, 4, 8, 10, and 11 had some type of youth development regional or multi-county focus prior to the Regional CYDS Initiative. Interestingly, two of these regions, Regions 1 and 10 ─ claiming regional collaboration prior to the Regional CYDS Initiative ─ rated perceived outcomes consistently higher than did other regions for both state-level and regional efforts. The means of the other three claiming prior regional effort are less consistent. In fact, Region 8 clearly had some problems in their perceptions of state-level effort. Two other regions, not known to be collaborating prior to the Regional CYDS Initiative, come up somewhat higher on means for state-level effort and regional effort. Region 2, in the higher group for both state and regional effort, put significant time into establishing a 501(c)3 organization. Region 4, in the higher group for state-level effort, developed a regional infrastructure, forming an executive committee and outlining financial policies. Region 5, in the higher group for regional effort, has put significant time into developing a region-wide summit for system building. These two variables, tenure of collaborative effort and attention to relationship building and structure formation, deserve further study. Summary of Key Findings Vision and Goals The Regional CYDS Initiative is perceived to have: • Provided a youth development framework, philosophy, goals, and definitions which are shared by relevant partners. • Promoted a common set of desired outcomes which are shared by partners. • Focused on both outcomes for youth and on system outcomes to support positive youth development. • Made decisions about communities and youth with community and youth involvement at regional (not state) level. Partnerships 37
  • 47. • State partners saw increased linkages for both state-level efforts and for regional efforts. • Regional partners did not perceive increased linkages as positively as state partners for either state or regional efforts. • Regional partners clearly felt the Regional CYDS Initiative complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region. Organizing, Planning, and Implementing • Regional respondents felt positive about their approach to organizing, planning, and implementing the regional initiatives. Outcomes • Regions are perceived to be making more progress than the state on achieving outcomes. • State-level partners perceive system outcomes at the regional level. • Regions with greater tenure of collaborative effort and those giving significant attention to relationship building and structure formation perceive more progress on outcomes related to both state-level and regional efforts. Sustainability • Regions perceive the system being established through their regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable and will allow them to more adequately ensure that youth in the regions will become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through participation in family and community life. Discussion and Recommendations There was, and is, potential in positioning regions for more efficient acquisition and utilization of resources and more integrated delivery of services, opportunities, and supports for youth. If this concept of regionalization is to happen throughout Georgia, it seems imperative that the State Partners Group, as the visionary leadership, immediately provide support and nurturing of this fledgling effort. Several things must happen. • Although not necessarily emanating from the data gathered for this assessment, there needs to be developed and disseminated a white paper or analysis of conditions and data that might lead policy groups and stakeholders to understand the need for development and nurturing of a Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative. In effect, what problems or challenges is a collaborative, at the regional level, trying to solve? Why is a regional, interagency approach in collaboration with the private sector a viable solution to enable all Georgia youth to become educated, healthy, connected, and employable? • The State Partner Group must be re-energized and new leadership identified. The state group should consider expanding membership to include private sector, legislative, and other governance involvement. Both Family Connection Partnership and Workforce Investment Boards need to be engaged or re-engaged, as they represent public and private partnerships with broad vested interests in the outcomes of youth. • Attention must continue to be focused on the necessary work of supporting the collaborative process at the state and regional levels. Potential funding, leadership, facilitation, support, and direction to continue the work might come from some state-level blended funding as 38
  • 48. envisioned and hoped for at the regional level. This would be an excellent opportunity for the state level to model and lead the way for the regions. • Regions must be engaged in determining the next steps for their own individual efforts and in shaping the future of the Georgia State Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative. • If the Initiative is to continue, strong effort should be expended in maintaining and fostering state-to-regional communication and support during its continual development. While even this current level of assessment may have been premature, it has provided a snapshot of some significant work in process and some good progress on regional collaboration and functional capacity. Continuing to study the collaborative process of the Regional CYDS Initiative, even beyond STW funding, with an appropriate collaborative leadership model as a reference would be an appropriate and scholarly endeavor. It is far too early to evaluate the effectiveness of the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Initiative in changing outcomes for youth or in developing a system capable of changing outcomes for youth. It has been only two years since the first formal meeting of the State Partners Group in June, 2001. It has been only eighteen months since the first meetings were held with key youth providers during January, 2002. It has been only one year since the twelve regions submitted their first planning grants and six months since they were awarded the continuation grants. It is important to note that the stakeholders do agree with the overall framework, vision, goals, proposed outcomes, and general desire to improve conditions for youth in Georgia. Participants in the Regional CYDS Initiative all want to ensure a better quality of life and outcomes for all youth than is currently thought to prevail for so many in Georgia. Further, those involved with the Regional CYDS Initiative thus far seem to support the collaborative or partnership systems approach to problem solving relative to Georgia’s youth development. They are committed. They want state leadership. They want more communication and information. Group formation, cohesion, planning, implementing, and just getting things done within a collaborative take time. Education and training in the collaborative process may need to occur. Turf issues need to be resolved. Public educators at a policy level need to be included and engaged in the Initiative. Based on our assessment of the data, participating in various meetings, and conducting interviews with relevant stakeholders, we believe the development of the Initiative needs more time, leadership and coordination, and the process of its development more study. Concomitantly, attention should be given to assessing measurable outcomes and progress toward achieving them. The process, the study of the process, and the outcomes of the process are deserving of more time. 39
  • 49. Appendix A Georgia Economic Development Regions Map 1
  • 50. GEORGIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS 2
  • 51. Appendix B Interview Questions for the State-Level Partners Group 1
  • 52. Interview Questions for the Sate-Level Partners Group Name ____________________________________________________ VISION AND DESIRED OUTCOMES 1. What was the vision for and purpose of establishing the Regional CYDS Initiative? What were you hoping for? a. 2. How were expectations, vision, and goals of the Initiative communicated to the regions? 3. How will you know if the Regional CYDS Initiative has been successful? 4. What would be indicators to you that a region just “didn’t get it?” PLAYERS AND PROCESS 5. How were members of the State-Level Partners Group selected? 6. What exactly was the role of the State-Level Partners Group in establishing the Regional CYDS Initiative? b. Developed the idea to serve a need? (The idea was born at the table?) c. Or legitimize an idea presented by another entity? d. Catalyst for establishing e. 7. What has been the continuing role of the State Partner’s Group? EMERGING OUTCOMES 8. To what extent have you seen State Partner agencies being informed by and responsive to local and regional voices? What examples can you give? f. 9. Do you feel that the quality of communication among state, regional, and local partners has improved? What are some examples? g. 10. To what extent are you already seeing system changes as a result of the Regional CYDS Initiative? 11. Do you feel this Initiative will continue in the absence of federal STW funds? Have you seen any evidence that funds are being leveraged to ensure the continuation of this Initiative? h. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 12. So far, have any policies or procedures been implemented or changed as a result of CYDS activities? i. 13. What is riding on the results of the Regional CYDS Initiative? 2
  • 53. Comprehensive Youth Development System April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report Region: _____ Submitted by: ___________________________ VISION AND GOALS 7. What have you understood to be the vision and goal of the Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative? ORGANIZING TO DO THE JOB 8. What challenges has your region faced in creating a regional system to accomplish desired outcomes for youth and how have you handled them? PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION 9. What was the basis for planning in your region (e.g. data on youth, a vision, target audiences focus, School and Main)? 10. What major youth issues/outcomes did your region address and how did you address them? OUTCOMES 11. Please share any successes you have experienced in implementing your strategies. 12. Is there specific data, evaluation reports, third-party assessments or any documentation of accomplishments or impact? (Please attach to this report.) SUSTAINABILITY 13. To what extent are you receiving funds from other sources (WIA, Tech Prep, 21st Century Learning Grants, city and county funds, private organizations, individual donors, etc.) to CYD April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report 1
  • 54. extend or link initiatives for greater outreach? 14. What do you see as the future of the CYDS Initiative? 15. What recommendations do you have for insuring that youth in your region become healthy, educated, employable and connected through successful participation in family and community life? 16. Please provide a list of current CYD regional partners. Provide two codes for each partner: • one code to indicate the sector they represent, and • a second code to indicate their level of involvement in the partnership.  Use the following codes to indicate the sector represented: F Family Connections R Regional Education Services C E Agency S A D Dept. of Juvenile Justice T Tech Prep J P J D Dept. of Family & Children G GA Dept. of Labor F Services D C O S L D Dept. of Trade & Tourism P Public Health I H T T R Rehabilitation Services B Boys and Girls Clubs e G h C a b D Dept. of Community Affairs C Chambers of Commerce C O A C E Community Employer Y Youth Council Representative M C P C Certified Literate Community D Dept. of Human Resources L Program H C R CYD April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report 2
  • 55. P D Dept. of Education Y Youth Apprenticeship Program O A E P S School to Work C Communities in Schools T I W S W Workforce Investment Act Area R Regional Development Center I Rep. D A C T Dept. of Technical and Adult M Mental Health/Developmental C Education Technical Colleges H Disabilities/Addiction s / Disorders D D Other: (please explain)  Use the following codes to indicate the level of participation of each partner in the work of the partnership. Choose the one code that best describes the partner’s involvement over the duration of the CYDS grant. M Member only (little actual involvement) S Member somewhat involved in regional planning and/or activities H Member heavily involved in regional planning and/or activities The quarterly report can be completed electronically and sent to Jan Pruitt in the STW office at jpruitt@dtae.org CYD April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report 3
  • 56. GUIDE TO ABBREVIATIONS USED IN FOLLOWING TABLES Abbreviation in Sectors Tables Family Connections FC Dept. of Juvenile Justice DJJ Dept. of Family & Children Services DFCS Dept. of Trade & Tourism DITT Rehabilitation Services Rehab Dept. of Community Affairs DCA Community Employer EMP Certified Literate Community Program CLCP Dept. of Education DOE School to Work STW Workforce Investment Act Area Rep. WIA Dept. of Technical and Adult Education TCs Regional Education Services Agency RESA Tech Prep TP GA Dept. of Labor GDOL Public Health PH Boys and Girls Clubs BGC Chambers of Commerce COC Youth Council Representative YC Dept. of Human Resources DHR Youth Apprenticeship Program YAP Communities in Schools CIS Regional Development Center RDC Mental Health/Developmental MH/DD Disabilities/Addiction Disorders Rating Codes Description of Code M Member Only (little actual involvement) S Member somewhat involved in regional planning and/or activities H Member heavily involved in regional planning and/or activities CYD April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report 1
  • 57. May 7, 2003 Dear Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative Participant: The Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System (CYDS) Initiative is nearing the end of the final funding period. It is important to assess the extent to which this initiative has resulted in the desired outcomes envisioned at its inception. As an individual closely associated with this effort, your opinion is important. Please take a few minutes to share your perceptions about Regional CDS outcomes on the enclosed opinion survey. It should take no longer than 10 minutes to complete. You also have the option of sharing comments and personal observations regarding any question. Individual remarks will be held in confidence; any comments you provide will be compiled and summarized and only shared in an aggregated format. You may return the survey electronically to jthomps@coe.uga.edu , fax to 706-542-4669, or you may mail the completed survey to: Occupational Research Group 850 College Station Road Athens, Georgia 30602-4812. If you have questions about this survey or any aspect of the CYDS assessment, you may contact Dr. Richard Lynch, Principle Investigator at the Occupational Research Group at the University of Georgia, (706) 542-4631or rlynch@coe.uga.edu; or Dorothy Harnish, Occupational Research Group at (706) 542-4690 or Harnish@coe.uga.edu . We appreciate your commitment to the Regional CYDS initiative and your contribution to this evaluation. Sincerely, Richard Lynch Dorothy Harnish Cc: Ann Peisher Sue Chandler CYD April 15, 2003 Quarterly Report 1
  • 58. Assessing Georgia’s Progress in Developing Regional Comprehensive Youth Development Systems Background and Context The regional Comprehensive Youth Development System initiative is an effort of the Georgia School-to- Work initiative, administered by the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education with funding from the federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. In June of 2001, the State of Georgia sent a team to the Southeastern Regional Summit: Creating a Comprehensive Youth Investment Strategy – a Community Centered Approach. At this conference, the participants explored the potential feasibility and benefit of integrating youth services and activities across the range of state-level agencies, as well as at the regional and local levels throughout Georgia. It was recognized in order for Georgia’s CYDS initiative to proceed, a broader base of partners would need to be established at regional and state levels. The team next identified with the state-level Community Youth Development Learning Resource Team, in existence and facilitated by Family Connection since October, 2000 and the Youth Services and School-to-Work Committee of the Georgia Workforce Investment Board, housed in the Georgia Department of Labor. These three independent efforts merged for the benefit of children and youth in Georgia. By January 2002, this State Level Partners Group had articulated Definitions, Guiding Principles, Purposes, Goals, and Strategies and moved to introduce the CYDS concept to key youth providers at the regional and local levels and to identify regional champions. Four regional sessions were held between March and June 2002 to provide regional teams with their first substantive opportunity to consider how the concept of a CYDS and partnership with a broader range of state-level partners could best serve the youth in their regions. DTAE’s School-to-Work initiative made substantial funding available to regions to support the concept of a comprehensive youth development system, contingent upon submission of plans for continuing the work after the School-to-Work seed money expires. These regional efforts, based on Georgia’s twelve economic development regions, are a primary focus of the current phase (2002-2003) of the STW/CYDS assessment. Definitions Youth Development is an ongoing process of building skills, knowledge, personal attributes, and positive attitudes though services, opportunities, and supports whereby youth and families are engaged as partners to ensure that youth become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through successful participation in family and community life. A Comprehensive Youth Development System (CYDS) focuses on supporting youth in their preparation to lead healthy, productive lives in ways that meet their needs, the needs of their families, and the needs of the community. Comprehensive youth development systems are typically created as broad based partnerships among youth serving organizations including, but not limited to, PK-12 and post secondary educational institutions, community based organizations, businesses, economic development agencies, other appropriate governmental agencies and initiatives (e.g. juvenile justice, public health, social services), faith based organizations, etc. The basic premise of the CYDS is that organizations provide detailed information about the services they provide and then engage in an active and ongoing process of matching those services and available resources to the needs of youth and their families in their particular communities. Broad Purpose and Outcomes Enable all of Georgia’s youth to achieve their highest potential by becoming: OVER
  • 59. • Educated Youth – ready for and succeeding in school; graduating from high school; attending higher (post secondary) education and training. • Healthy Youth – physically fit, diplomas before diapers, drug free, crime free, tobacco free. • Connected Youth – engaged in positive after school activities, in healthy relationships with adults and with peers, contributing positively to their communities. • Employable Youth – able to be successfully employed. System Purposes • Create a holistic, focused, and coordinated system of opportunities, supports, and services for Georgia’s youth. • Model collaborative leadership and shared responsibility for accomplishing the work for other professionals and WITH youth. • Acquire more and better evidence of what positively impacts youth. • Create a change capable system; i.e., can change focus and activities with changing needs. • Provide a wide and diverse range of activities and services for youth. • Enable all youth to feel valued, to be engaged, and to achieve their highest potential. System Outcomes • Shared Youth Development framework and models for state and local planning and decision- making. • Shared set of philosophy, outcomes, goals, and definitions. • State partners’ decision-making supports achievement of respective missions/mandates. • Jointly trained/developed staff. • Youth Development services/resource matrix to guide/simplify planning and resource allocation. • A directory of Youth Development services, opportunities, and supports. • Comprehensive Youth Development calendar of activities, events, grants training. • Blended funding. State-Level Partners Group • Family Connection Partnership • Youth Services Committee – Georgia Workforce Investment Board • Department of Human Resources/ Divisions of Public Health Family and Children Services Mental Health • Children and Youth Coordinating Council • Department of Juvenile Justice • Department of Labor • Department of Technical and Adult Education School-to-Work Initiative (seven agency collaborative – DITT, DOL, DOE, DTAE, GPEE, OPB, USG) • Department of Education • University System of Georgia Board of Regents OVER
  • 60. 4-H Family and Consumer Sciences Carl Vinson Institute of Government College of Education, UGA Evaluation Contractor The Occupational Research Group at the University of Georgia has been contracted to conduct an assessment of the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System initiative. Members of the State- Level Partners Group will be interviewed and Regional CYDS lead contacts will be asked to complete a questionnaire that addresses CYDS vision and purpose, process, planning and implementation, outcomes, and sustainability. Review of planning and implementation grants and quarterly reports will provide documentation of activities and assess successes, challenges, and impact during the two planning and implementation years. Project staff from UGA will assist with the overall assessment. Further information can be obtained from Dr. Richard L. Lynch, Principal Investigator at the ORG, (706) 542-4631; rlynch@coe.uga.edu; River’s Crossing, University of Georgia, 850 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602-4812. Occupational Research Group, University of Georgia, March 2003 OVER
  • 61. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment Name Regio n What is your position related to CYDS? _________Lead Regional Contact _______ Member of State Partner Group _________Regional Champion _______ Regional Partnership Member Please indicate (X) the sector(s) you represent. (Mark all that apply.) j. ____ Family Connections k. l. ____ Regional Education Services Agency m. ____ Dept. of Juvenile Justice n. o. ____ Tech Prep p. ____ Dept. of Family & Children Services q. r. ____ GA Dept. of Labor s. ____ Dept. of Trade & Tourism t. u. ____ Public Health v. ____ Rehabilitation Services w. x. ____ Boys and Girls Clubs y. ____ Dept. of Community Affairs z. aa. ____ Chambers of Commerce bb. ____ Community Employer cc dd. ____ Youth Council Representative . ee. ____ Certified Literate Community Program ff. gg. ____ Dept. of Human Resources hh. ____ Dept. of Education ii. jj. ____ Youth Apprenticeship Program kk. ____ School to Work ll. mm.____ Communities in Schools nn. ____ Workforce Investment Act Area Rep. o pp. ____ Regional Development Center o. qq. ____ Dept. of Technical and Adult Education rr. ss. ____ Mental Health/Developmental tt. Disabilities/Addiction Disorders uu. ____ Other (Please explain.) The purpose of this assessment is to determine the extent to which you perceive the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System has achieved CYDS desired system outcomes and purposes. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement as it relates to the:  Overall State-level CYDS effort, And  Regional CYDS effort. Use the following response scale: SA A D SD Strongly Agre Disagree Strongly Agree e Disagree OVER
  • 62. Following each assessment, share any comments that might provide additional insight. (Attach additional pages as needed.) If you choose to respond electronically, first open the file and save as a WORD document. The electronically completed survey can be emailed as a Word attachment to jthomps@coe.uga.edu. OVER
  • 63. Outcome/Purpose Statement Assessment (Please X or Circle) 1. The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development State-Level Effort Regional Effort framework, philosophy, goals and definitions which are shared SA A D SD SA A D SD by relevant partners for planning and decision making. Comments: 2. The CYDS initiative has promoted a common set of desired State-Level Effort Regional Effort youth outcomes which are shared by the relevant partners SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 3. The relevant CYDS partner groups have designed, promoted State-Level Effort Regional Effort and made possible the joint training and development of staff. SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 4. A Youth Development resource matrix has been developed to State-Level Effort Regional Effort guide CYDS planning and resource allocation SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 5. The CYDS initiative has provided a directory of Youth State-Level Effort Regional Effort Development services, opportunities, and supports. SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 6. The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development State-Level Effort Regional Effort calendar of activities, events, and grants training. SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 7. The CYDS initiative has resulted in blended funding for the State-Level Effort Regional Effort purpose of achieving desired youth outcomes. SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: OVER
  • 64. Outcome/Purpose Statement Assessment (Please X or Circle) 8. The CYDS initiative has focused on both desired outcomes for State-Level Effort Regional Effort youth and on system changes to support youth outcomes. SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 9. Within the CYDS initiative, decisions affecting youth and State-Level Effort Regional Effort communities have been made with youth and community SA A D SD SA A D SD participation. Comments: 10 As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, system changes State-Level Effort Regional Effort . have been observed. SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 11 As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, there have been State-Level Effort Regional Effort . increased regional-to-state and state-to-regional linkages. SA A D SD SA A D SD Comments: 12 The Regional CYDS initiative has complemented and State-Level Effort Regional Effort . enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts SA A D SD SA A D SD in communities and the region. Comments: 13 The approach our region took to organizing, planning and Regional Effort implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative has been effective. SA A D SD . Comments: 14 Our region was fully prepared for the Regional CYDS Regional Effort Initiative through the various regional and state meetings SA A D SD . offered by the State School to Work Office and School and Main. OVER
  • 65. Outcome/Purpose Statement Assessment (Please X or Circle) Comments: 15 The system being established through our Regional CYDS Regional Effort Initiative is sustainable and will allow us to more adequately SA A D SD . insure that youth in the region will become healthy, educated, employable and connected through successful participation in family and community life Comments: OVER
  • 66. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment Respondent Profile What is your position related to CYDS? Lead Regional Member of State Regional No Other Total Regio Regional Champion Partner Group Partnership Response n Contact Member 1 1 1 1 6 1-fiscal agent N=7 (3 respondents marked 2 positions) 2 1 4 N=5 4 4 N=4 5 1 5 1 N=7 6 2 3 1 N=6 7 2 3 N=5 8 2 N=2 10 2 2 1 6 N=9 (2 respondents marked 2 positions) 11 2 2 10 3 N=16 (1respondent marked 2 positions) 12 4 1 6 N=9
  • 67. (2 respondents marked 2 positions) State 7 1 N=8 8 10 12 49 6 1-fiscal agent N=78 TOTA 10.3% 12.8% 15.4% 62.8% 7.7% 1.3% (8 respondents L marked 2 positions) (Percents do not equal 100% because 8 respondents selected two positions.)
  • 68. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment N= number of respondents Mean figured on a 4 point scale (SA is 4 and SD is 1) Frequency counts and % of respondents reported for SA, A, D, SD, No resp. 1. The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development framework, philosophy, goals and definitions which are shared by relevant partners for planning and decision making. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.86 1 4 2 1 7 3.43 4 2 1 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 2 5 3.00 1 2 1 1 2 5 3.40 2 3 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 4 4 2.75 1 2 1 4 4 2.75 2 1 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 5 2 5 7 3.00 6 1 71.4% 28.6% 85.7% 14.3% 6 6 3.33 1 2 3 6 6 3.00 1 2 1 2 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 4 1 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 80.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.00 2 8 2 3.00 2 100.0% 100.0% 10 9 3.29 2 5 2 10 9 3.56 5 4
  • 69. 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 55.6% 44.4% 11 16 3.00 1 8 1 6 11 16 2.92 3 5 4 4 6.3% 50.0% 6.3% 37.5% 18.8% 31.3% 25.0% 25.0% 12 9 2.88 1 5 2 1 12 9 2.67 6 3 11.1% 55.6% 22.2% 11.1% 66.7% 33.3% State 8 3.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.40 2 3 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.97 9 42 9 1 17 TOTAL 78 3.10 20 36 11 1 10 11.5 53.8 11.5% 1.3% 21.8 25.6 46.2% 14.1 1.3% 12.8% % % % % % Regional 70 2.96 Regional 70 3.08 Members Member Only s Only
  • 70. 2. The CYDS initiative has promoted a common set of desired youth outcomes which are shared by the relevant partners. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) Resp. (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.00 2 3 2 1 7 3.71 5 2 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 71.4% 28.6% 2 5 3.00 1 2 1 1 2 5 3.20 2 2 1 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.75 1 2 1 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 5 2 5 7 3.00 6 1 71.4% 28.6% 85.7% 14.3% 6 6 3.00 3 3 6 6 2.75 3 1 2 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 4 1 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 80.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.50 1 1 8 2 3.00 2 50.0% 50.00% 100.0% 10 9 3.50 3 3 3 10 9 3.44 4 5 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 44.4% 55.6% 11 16 2.60 6 4 6 11 16 2.83 3 4 5 4
  • 71. 37.5% 25.0% 37.5% 18.8% 25.0% 31.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.75 6 2 1 12 9 2.78 1 5 3 66.7% 22.2 11.1% 11.1% 55.6% 33.3% State 8 3.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.88 8 39 11 2 18 TOTAL 78 3.04 17 38 12 1 10 10.3 50.0 14.1 2.6% 23.1 21.8 48.7% 15.4 1.3% 12.8% % % % % % % Regional 70 2.87 Regional 70 3.05 Members Member Only s Only
  • 72. 3. The relevant CYDS partner groups have designed, promoted and made possible the joint training and development of staff. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.67 2 1 2 1 1 1 7 3.29 3 3 1 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 2 5 3.00 1 1 1 2 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 2.75 1 2 1 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.67 2 1 4 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 3.00 2 6 6 2.50 2 2 2 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 4 1 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 80.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.50 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.17 1 5 3 10 9 3.29 2 5 2 11.1% 55.6% 33.3% 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 11 16 2.67 1 4 4 7 11 16 2.64 1 6 3 1 5 6.3% 25.0% 25.0% 43.8% 6.3% 37.5% 18.8% 6.3% 31.3%
  • 73. 12 9 2.67 6 3 12 9 2.44 4 5 66.7% 33.3% 44.4% 55.6% State 8 2.29 4 1 2 1 State 8 2.60 1 2 1 1 3 50.0% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.65 5 32 12 6 23 TOTAL 78 2.79 10 31 17 3 17 6.4% 41.0 15.4 7.7% 29.5 12.8 39.7 21.8 3.8% 21.8% % % % % % % Regional 70 2.71 Regional 70 2.80 Members Member Only s Only
  • 74. 4. A Youth Development resource matrix has been developed to guide CYDS planning and resource allocation. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.60 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 3.33 2 4 1 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 2 5 2.50 1 1 3 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 4 4 2.33 2 1 1 4 4 1.67 1 2 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.50 1 1 5 5 7 2.50 1 1 5 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 6 6 2.00 1 5 6 6 3.00 3 3 16.7% 83.3% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.33 2 1 2 7 5 2.50 2 2 1 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.00 1 3 1 4 10 9 3.00 1 5 1 2 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 44.4% 11.1% 55.6% 11.1% 22.2% 11 16 2.25 4 2 2 8 11 16 3.00 3 7 1 1 4 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 50.0% 18.8% 43.8% 6.3% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.38 3 5 1 12 9 2.75 6 2 1
  • 75. 33.3% 55.6% 11.1 66.7% 22.2% 11.1 State 8 2.67 4 2 2 State 8 2.80 4 1 3 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.44 2 23 13 7 33 TOTAL 78 2.81 6 35 10 3 24 2.6% 29.5 16.7 9.0% 42.3 7.7% 44.9 12.8 3.8% 30.8% % % % % % Regional 70 2.41 Regional 70 2.82 Members Member Only s Only
  • 76. 5. The CYDS initiative has provided a directory of Youth Development services, opportunities, and supports. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.50 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 3.17 2 3 1 1 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 2 5 2.67 2 1 2 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 2.00 1 1 2 4 4 2.00 1 1 2 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 2.33 1 2 4 5 7 2.67 1 2 4 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 6 6 -- 6 6 6 2.50 1 1 4 100.0% 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 7 5 2.00 1 2 1 1 7 5 2.60 3 2 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 8 2 1.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 2.60 3 2 4 10 9 2.50 3 3 3 33.3% 22.2% 44.4% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 11 16 2.63 1 3 4 8 11 16 3.17 3 8 1 4 6.3% 18.8% 25.0% 50.0% 18.8% 50.0% 6.3% 25.0%
  • 77. 12 9 2.29 2 5 2 12 9 3.00 2 5 2 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% State 8 2.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.32 2 16 22 6 32 TOTAL 78 2.82 9 31 15 2 21 2.6% 20.5 28.2 7.7% 41.0% 11.5 39.7 19.2 2.6% 26.9% % % % % % Regional 70 2.36 Regional 70 2.81 Members Member Only s Only
  • 78. 6. The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development calendar of activities, events, and grants training. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.50 2 1 1 2 1 1 7 3.00 2 3 2 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 2 5 2.00 1 1 1 2 2 5 2.67 2 1 2 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 3.00 4 4 4 2.75 3 1 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.33 1 2 4 5 7 2.67 1 2 4 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 6 6 1.00 1 5 6 6 2.00 3 3 16.7% 83.3% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.25 1 3 1 7 5 2.20 1 4 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 80.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 3.00 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 2.80 1 2 2 4 10 9 2.75 1 4 3 1 11.1% 22.2% 22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 44.4% 33.3% 11.1% 11 16 2.22 1 2 4 2 7 11 16 2.08 2 7 3 4 6.3% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 43.8% 12.5% 43.8% 18.8% 25.0%
  • 79. 12 9 2.29 2 5 2 12 9 2.44 4 5 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 44.4% 55.6% State 8 1.71 5 2 1 State 8 2.10 2 2 1 3 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.28 4 14 24 8 28 TOTAL 78 2.47 7 19 31 4 17 5.1% 17.9% 30.8 10.3 35.9 9.0% 24.4 39.7 5.1% 21.8% % % % % % Regional 70 2.37 Regional 70 2.50 Members Member Only s Only
  • 80. 7. The CYDS initiative has resulted in blended funding for the purpose of achieving desired youth outcomes. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.50 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 3.17 2 3 1 1 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 2 5 2.67 1 1 1 2 2 5 2.00 1 1 1 2 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 3.00 2 1 1 4 4 2.25 1 1 2 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 2.50 2 2 3 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 1.00 2 4 6 6 2.00 1 1 1 3 33.3% 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 7 5 2.00 1 1 1 2 7 5 1.50 2 2 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.20 2 2 1 4 10 9 3.28 5 2 2 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 44.4% 55.5% 22.2% 22.2% 11 16 2.40 1 3 5 1 6 11 16 2.50 1 4 7 4 6.3% 18.8% 31.3% 6.3% 37.5% 6.3% 25.0% 43.8% 25.0%
  • 81. 12 9 1.83 5 1 3 12 9 1.88 7 1 1 55.6% 11.1% 33.3% 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% State 8 2.14 1 6 1 State 8 2.25 1 3 4 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 50.0% TOTAL 78 2.36 7 12 23 8 28 TOTAL 78 2.47 9 17 26 7 19 9.0% 15.4 29.5 10.3 35.9 11.5 21.8 33.3 9.0% 24.4% % % % % % % % Regional 70 2.40 Regional 70 2.48 Members Member Only s Only
  • 82. 8. The CYDS initiative has focused on both desired outcomes for youth and on system changes to support youth outcomes State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 3.00 2 4 1 1 7 3.43 3 4 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 42.9% 27.1% 2 5 3.00 1 2 1 1 2 5 3.40 2 3 20.0 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 4 4 2.33 1 2 1 4 4 2.33 1 2 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 3 4 5 7 3.00 1 4 1 1 42.9% 57.1% 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 6 6 3.00 3 3 6 6 2.75 3 1 2 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 3 2 7 5 3.00 4 1 60.0% 40.0% 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.40 2 3 4 10 9 3.44 5 3 1 22.2% 33.3% 44.4% 55.65 33.3% 11.1% 11 16 2.70 2 5 1 2 6 11 16 2.92 3 6 2 1 4 12.5% 31.3% 6.3% 12.5% 37.5% 18.8% 37.5% 12.5% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.71 5 2 2 12 9 2.89 8 1 55.6% 22.2% 22.2% 89.9% 11.1%
  • 83. State 8 3.29 2 5 1 State 8 3.40 2 3 3 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.91 9 34 6 4 25 TOTAL 78 3.08 16 40 9 1 12 11.5% 43.6% 7.7% 5.1% 32.1% 20.5% 51.3% 11.5% 1.3% 15.4% Regional 70 2.85 Regional 70 3.05 Members Members Only Only
  • 84. 9. Within the CYDS initiative, decisions affecting youth and communities have been made with youth and community participation. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.71 1 4 1 1 1 7 3.86 6 1 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 14.3% 2 5 2.50 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 3.80 4 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 80.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.33 2 1 1 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.00 2 5 5 7 2.80 4 1 2 28.6% 71.5% 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 6 6 2.50 1 1 4 6 6 3.00 3 3 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.75 3 1 1 7 5 2.60 3 2 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 3.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.33 1 2 6 10 9 3.33 4 4 1 11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%
  • 85. 11 16 2.22 1 3 2 3 7 11 16 2.08 1 2 6 3 4 6.3% 18.8% 12.5% 18.8% 43.8% 6.3% 12.5% 37.5% 18.8% 25.0% 12 9 2.13 2 5 1 1 12 9 2.44 4 5 22.2% 55.6% 11.1% 11.1% 44.4% 55.6% State 8 2.29 1 1 4 1 1 State 8 3.40 2 3 3 12.5% 12.5% 50.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.42 5 19 18 8 28 TOTAL 78 2.92 19 27 16 4 12 6.4% 24.4% 23.1% 10.3% 35.9% 24.4% 34.6% 20.5% 5.1% 15.4% Regional 70 2.44 Regional 70 2.89 Members Members Only Only
  • 86. 10. As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, system changes have been observed. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.17 2 3 1 1 1 7 2.86 6 1 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 14.3% 2 5 2.50 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2.75 1 1 2 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.67 1 2 1 4 4 2.25 1 2 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.00 1 6 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 14.3% 85.7% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 2.00 1 1 1 3 6 6 2.00 1 2 1 2 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.00 3 2 7 5 2.00 4 1 60.0% 40.0% 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 2.80 1 2 2 4 10 9 3.00 3 4 1 1 11.1% 22.2% 22.2% 44.4% 33.3% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11 16 2.33 1 4 1 3 7 11 16 2.33 2 4 2 4 4 6.3% 25.0% 6.3% 18.8% 43.8% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12 9 2.00 1 3 1 4 12 9 2.57 5 1 1 2 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 44.4% 55.6% 11.1% 11.1% 22.2%
  • 87. State 8 2.57 4 3 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.34 4 15 21 7 31 TOTAL 78 2.58 7 30 17 8 16 5.1% 19.2% 26.9% 9.0% 39.7% 9.0% 38.5% 21.8% 10.3% 20.5% Regional 70 2.30 Regional 70 2.54 Members Members Only Only
  • 88. 11. As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, there have been increased regional-to-state and state-to-regional linkages. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.86 1 5 1 1 7 3.14 1 6 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 2 5 2.75 1 2 1 1 2 5 2.75 1 2 1 1 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 4 4 3.00 1 2 1 4 4 2.75 1 1 2 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 2.67 2 1 4 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 3.00 2 4 6 6 3.00 3 3 33.3% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.00 3 2 7 5 2.50 2 2 1 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 2.00 2 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 10 9 3.50 3 3 3 10 9 3.33 4 4 1 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 44.4% 44.4% 11.1% 11 16 2.63 1 4 2 1 8 11 16 2.58 1 6 4 1 4 6.3% 25.0% 12.5% 6.3% 50.0% 6.3% 37.5% 25.0% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.75 6 2 1 12 9 2.56 5 4
  • 89. 66.7% 22.2% 11.1% 55.6% 44.4% State 8 3.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.83 8 31 11 3 25 TOTAL 78 2.81 8 37 16 2 15 10.3% 39.7% 14.1% 3.8% 32.1% 10.3% 47.4% 20.5% 2.6% 19.2% Regional 70 2.80 Regional 70 2.79 Members Members Only Only
  • 90. 12. The Regional CYDS initiative has complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.83 1 4 1 1 1 7 3.71 5 2 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 28.6% 2 5 2.67 1 1 1 2 2 5 3.20 2 2 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.75 1 1 2 4 4 2.75 1 1 2 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 3.00 3 4 5 7 3.33 2 4 1 42.9% 57.1% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 6 6 3.00 2 4 6 6 3.00 4 2 33.3% 66.7% 66.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.50 1 1 3 7 5 2.75 3 1 1 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 8 2 3.00 1 1 8 2 3.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.40 2 3 4 10 9 3.56 5 4 22.2% 33.3% 44.4% 55.6% 44.4% 11 16 2.43 4 2 1 9 11 16 3.08 4 6 1 1 4 25.0% 12.5% 6.3% 56.3% 25.0% 37.5% 6.3% 6.3% 25.0%
  • 91. 12 9 2.67 4 2 3 12 9 2.75 6 2 1 44.4% 22.2% 33.3% 66.7% 22.2% 11.1% State 8 3.17 1 5 2 State 8 3.20 1 4 3 12.5% 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.84 6 29 7 3 33 TOTAL 78 3.18 21 37 7 1 12 7.7% 37.2% 9.0% 3.8% 42.3% 26.9% 47.4% 9.0% 1.3% 15.4% Regional 70 2.79 Regional 70 3.18 Members Members Only Only
  • 92. 13. The approach our region took to organizing, planning and implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative has been effective. Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.71 5 2 71.4% 28.6% 2 5 3.75 3 1 1 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 1 3 1 2 14.3% 42.9% 14.3% 28.6% 6 6 3.00 4 2 66.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.80 4 1 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.33 5 3 1 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% 11 16 2.92 2 7 3 4 12.5% 43.8% 18.8% 25.0% 12 9 2.88 1 5 2 1
  • 93. 11.1% 55.6% 22.2% 11.1% State 8 -- 8 100.0% TOTAL 78 3.08 18 31 9 2 18 23.1% 39.7% 11.5% 2.6% 23.1% Regional 70 3.08 Members Only
  • 94. 14. Our region was fully prepared for the Regional CYDS Initiative through the various regional and state meetings offered by the State School to Work Office and School and Main. Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.14 3 2 2 42.9% 28.6% 28.6% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 40.0% 20.% 40.0% 4 4 3.25 2 1 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.40 2 3 2 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 6 6 2.00 4 2 66.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.80 4 1 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.25 3 4 1 1 33.3% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11 16 1.91 2 6 3 5
  • 95. 12.5% 37.5% 18.8% 31.3% 12 9 2.13 2 5 1 1 22.2% 55.6% 11.1% 11.1% State 8 -- 8 100.0% TOTAL 78 2.54 8 20 24 5 21 10.3% 25.6% 30.8% 6.4% 26.9% Regional 70 2.54 Members Only
  • 96. 15. The system being established through our Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable and will allow us to more adequately insure that youth in the region will become healthy, educated, employable and connected through successful participation in family and community life. Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.43 4 2 1 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 2 5 3.00 3 2 60.0% 40.0% 4 4 2.75 2 1 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.40 2 3 2 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 6 6 2.50 1 1 4 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8 2 3.00 2 100.0% 10 9 3.44 5 3 1 55.6% 33.3% 11.1% 11 16 3.04 4 5 3 4 25.0% 31.0% 18.8% 25.0%
  • 97. 12 9 3.00 1 6 1 1 11.1% 66.7% 11.1% 11.1% State 8 -- 8 100.0% TOTAL 78 3.13 19 28 9 1 21 24.4% 35.9% 11.5% 1.3% 26.9% Regional 70 3.13 Members Only
  • 98. Regional Differences Marks (X) Indicate Questions with Regional Means of 3.0 (Agree) or Greater for State-Level Effort Perceived Outcome Survey Questions for State-Level Effort Regio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 n 1 x x 2 x x x 4 x x x 5 x x x x 6 x x x x x x 7 x x x x 8 x 10 x x x x x x x x x 11 x 12 Marks (X) Indicate Questions with Regional Means of 3.0 (Agree) or Greater for Regional Effort Perceived Outcome Survey Questions for Regional Effort Regio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 n 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 x x x x x x x x 4 x 5 x x x x x x 6 x x x x x x 7 x x x x x 8 x x x x x x 10 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 11 x x x x 12 x x Note: Region 3 and Region 9 did not participate in the Perceived Outcome Assessment survey. Summary of Means for Questions 1-12 – State-Level Effort –By Regional Participants
  • 99. Mean figured on a 4 point scale Strongly Agree = 4 Agree = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Mean R1 2.86 3.00 2.67 2.60 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.71 2.17 2.86 2.83 2.70 R2 3.00 3.00 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.00 2.67 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.67 2.62 R4 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.33 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.33 2.33 2.67 3.00 2.75 2.68 R5 3.00 3.00 2.67 2.50 2.33 2.33 2.50 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.67 3.00 2.68 R6 3.33 3.00 3.00 2.00 -- 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.58 R7 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.33 2.00 2.25 2.00 3.00 2.75 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.51 R8 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.73 R10 3.29 3.50 3.17 3.00 2.60 2.80 3.20 3.40 3.33 2.80 3.50 3.40 3.17 R11 3.00 2.60 2.67 2.25 2.63 2.22 2.40 2.70 2.22 2.33 2.63 2.43 2.51 R12 2.88 2.75 2.67 2.38 2.29 2.29 1.83 2.71 2.13 2.00 2.75 2.67 2.47 Summary of Means for Questions 1-15 – Regional Effort –By Regional Participants Mean figured on a 4 point scale Strongly Agree = 4 Agree = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Mean 3.4 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8 R1 2.86 3.14 3.71 3.71 3.14 3.43 3.36 3 1 9 3 7 0 7 3 6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.0 3.4 3.8 R2 2.75 275 3.20 3.75 2.33 3.00 3.05 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 2.7 2.5 2.5 1.6 2.0 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.5 R4 2.25 2.75 2.75 2.50 3.25 2.75 2.52 5 0 0 7 0 5 5 3 0 R5 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.75 2.75 3.33 3.00 2.40 3.40 2.90
  • 100. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Mean 0 0 5 0 7 7 5 0 0 3.0 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.7 3.0 R6 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.50 2.61 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.2 1.5 3.0 2.6 R7 2.00 2.50 2.75 2.80 2.80 3.00 2.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.5 R8 2.50 2.00 3.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.3 R10 3.00 3.33 3.56 3.33 3.25 3.44 3.26 6 4 9 0 0 5 8 4 3 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.0 2.5 2.9 2.0 R11 2.33 2.58 3.08 2.92 1.91 3.04 2.67 2 3 4 0 7 8 0 2 8 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.4 R12 2.57 2.56 2.75 2.88 2.13 3.00 2.61 7 8 4 5 0 4 8 9 4 Level of Agreement on Perception of Regional and State Efforts Mean figured on a 4 point scale Strongly Agree = 4 Agree = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Q. Regional Perspective N=70 State Perspective N=8 # State Effort Regional Effort State Effort Regional Effort Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 1 2.96 3.08 3.00 3.40 2 2.87 3.05 3.00 3.00 3 2.71 2.80 2.29 2.60 4 2.41 2.82 2.67 2.80 5 2.36 2.81 2.00 3.00 6 2.37 2.50 1.71 2.10 7 2.40 2.48 2.14 2.25 8 2.85 3.05 3.29 3.40
  • 101. Q. Regional Perspective N=70 State Perspective N=8 # State Effort Regional Effort State Effort Regional Effort Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 1 2.96 3.08 3.00 3.40 2 2.87 3.05 3.00 3.00 9 2.44 2.89 2.29 3.40 10 2.30 2.54 2.57 3.00 11 2.80 2.79 3.00 3.00 12 2.79 3.18 3.17 --- 3.20 13 --- --- 3.08 --- --- --- --- 14 --- --- 2.54 --- --- --- --- 15 --- --- 3.13 --- --- --- ---
  • 102. # surveys # surveys % distributed returned Region 1 16 7 43.8% Region 2 15 5 33.3% Region 3 none Region 4 19 4 21.1% Region 5 29 7 24.1% Region 6 25 6 24.0% Region 7 15 5 33.3% Region 8 14 2 14.3% Region 9 none Region 10 40 9 22.5% Region 11 27 16 59.3% Region 12 14 9 64.3% Regional Return Rate 214 70 32.7% State Team 21 8 38.1% Overall Return Rate 235 78 33.2%
  • 103. Number of % of total times selected selections Family Connection 17 13.8% School to Work 17 13.8% Other 11 8.9% Workforce Investment Act Area Rep. 11 8.9% Youth Council Representative 10 8.1% Dept. of Technical and Adult Education 9 7.3% Public Health 7 5.7% Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities/Addiction Disorders 6 4.9% Tech Prep 5 4.1% Dept. of Juvenile Justice 4 3.3% Dept. of Family & Children Services 4 3.3% Regional Development Center 4 3.3% Community Employer 3 2.4% Dept. of Human Resources 3 2.4% Dept. of Education 2 1.6% GA Dept. of Labor 2 1.6% Chambers of Commerce 2 1.6% Communities in Schools 2 1.6% Rehabilitation Services 1 0.8% Dept. of Community Affairs 1 0.8% Boys and Girls Clubs 1 0.8% Youth Apprenticeship Program 1 0.8%
  • 104. Dept. of Trade & Tourism 0 0.0% Certified Literate Community Program 0 0.0% Regional Education Services Agency 0 0.0% Number of sectors marked 123 Participants choosing: no sector 4 5.1% 1 sector 46 59.0% 2 sectors 16 20.5% 3 sectors 6 7.7% 4 sectors 4 5.1% 5 sectors 1 1.3% 7 sectors 1 1.3% List of "Other" (11): Girl Scouts (2) UGA (2) Chair RAC (1) Cooperative Extension (1) United Way (1) Consultant (1) Private Non Profit (1) Public Housing (1) unspecified (1)
  • 105. Sectors Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region State TOTALS 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 Family Connection 1 2 3 3 4 1 3 17 Dept. of Juvenile Justice 1 2 1 4 Dept. of Family & Children 1 1 1 1 4 Services Dept. of Trade & Tourism 0 Rehabilitation Services 1 1 Dept. of Community Affairs 1 1 Community Employer 1 1 1 3 Certified Literate Community 0 Program Dept. of Education 1 1 2 School to Work 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 17 Workforce Investment Act Area 1 2 3 2 1 2 11 Rep. Dept. of Technical and Adult 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 9 Education Regional Education Services 0 Agency Tech Prep 1 1 3 5 GA Dept. of Labor 1 1 2 Public Health 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 Boys and Girls Clubs 1 1 Chambers of Commerce 2 2
  • 106. Youth Council Representative 1 3 2 3 1 10 Dept. of Human Resources 2 1 3 Youth Apprenticeship Program 1 1 Communities in Schools 1 1 2 Regional Development Center 1 1 1 1 4 Mental Health/Developmental 1 2 1 2 6 Disabilities/Addiction Disorders Other 1 2 3 1 1 3 11 No Response 1 2 1 4
  • 107. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment N= number of respondents Mean figured on a 4 point scale (SA is 4 and SD is 1) Frequency counts and % of respondents reported for SA, A, D, SD, No resp. 1. The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development framework, philosophy, goals and definitions which are shared by relevant partners for planning and decision making. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.86 1 4 2 1 7 3.43 4 2 1 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 2 5 3.00 1 2 1 1 2 5 3.40 2 3 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 4 4 2.75 1 2 1 4 4 2.75 2 1 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 5 2 5 7 3.00 6 1 71.4% 28.6% 85.7% 14.3% 6 6 3.33 1 2 3 6 6 3.00 1 2 1 2 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 4 1 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 80.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0%
  • 108. 8 2 2.00 2 8 2 3.00 2 100.0% 100.0% 10 9 3.29 2 5 2 10 9 3.56 5 4 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 55.6% 44.4% 11 16 3.00 1 8 1 6 11 16 2.92 3 5 4 4 6.3% 50.0% 6.3% 37.5% 18.8% 31.3% 25.0% 25.0% 12 9 2.88 1 5 2 1 12 9 2.67 6 3 11.1% 55.6% 22.2% 11.1% 66.7% 33.3% State 8 3.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.40 2 3 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.97 9 42 9 1 17 TOTAL 78 3.10 20 36 11 1 10 11.5 53.8 11.5% 1.3% 21.8 25.6 46.2% 14.1 1.3% 12.8% % % % % % Regional 70 2.96 Regional 70 3.08 Members Member Only s Only
  • 109. 2. The CYDS initiative has promoted a common set of desired youth outcomes which are shared by the relevant partners. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) Resp. (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.00 2 3 2 1 7 3.71 5 2 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 71.4% 28.6% 2 5 3.00 1 2 1 1 2 5 3.20 2 2 1 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.75 1 2 1 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 5 2 5 7 3.00 6 1 71.4% 28.6% 85.7% 14.3% 6 6 3.00 3 3 6 6 2.75 3 1 2 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 4 1 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 80.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.50 1 1 8 2 3.00 2 50.0% 50.00% 100.0%
  • 110. 10 9 3.50 3 3 3 10 9 3.44 4 5 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 44.4% 55.6% 11 16 2.60 6 4 6 11 16 2.83 3 4 5 4 37.5% 25.0% 37.5% 18.8% 25.0% 31.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.75 6 2 1 12 9 2.78 1 5 3 66.7% 22.2 11.1% 11.1% 55.6% 33.3% State 8 3.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.88 8 39 11 2 18 TOTAL 78 3.04 17 38 12 1 10 10.3 50.0 14.1 2.6% 23.1 21.8 48.7% 15.4 1.3% 12.8% % % % % % % Regional 70 2.87 Regional 70 3.05 Members Members Only Only
  • 111. 3. The relevant CYDS partner groups have designed, promoted and made possible the joint training and development of staff. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.67 2 1 2 1 1 1 7 3.29 3 3 1 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 2 5 3.00 1 1 1 2 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 2.75 1 2 1 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.67 2 1 4 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 3.00 2 6 6 2.50 2 2 2 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 4 1 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 80.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.50 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.17 1 5 3 10 9 3.29 2 5 2
  • 112. 11.1% 55.6% 33.3% 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 11 16 2.67 1 4 4 7 11 16 2.64 1 6 3 1 5 6.3% 25.0% 25.0% 43.8% 6.3% 37.5% 18.8% 6.3% 31.3% 12 9 2.67 6 3 12 9 2.44 4 5 66.7% 33.3% 44.4% 55.6% State 8 2.29 4 1 2 1 State 8 2.60 1 2 1 1 3 50.0% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.65 5 32 12 6 23 TOTAL 78 2.79 10 31 17 3 17 6.4% 41.0 15.4 7.7% 29.5 12.8 39.7 21.8 3.8% 21.8% % % % % % % Regional 70 2.71 Regional 70 2.80 Members Members Only Only
  • 113. 4. A Youth Development resource matrix has been developed to guide CYDS planning and resource allocation. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.60 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 3.33 2 4 1 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 2 5 2.50 1 1 3 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 4 4 2.33 2 1 1 4 4 1.67 1 2 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.50 1 1 5 5 7 2.50 1 1 5 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 6 6 2.00 1 5 6 6 3.00 3 3 16.7% 83.3% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.33 2 1 2 7 5 2.50 2 2 1 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.00 1 3 1 4 10 9 3.00 1 5 1 2 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 44.4% 11.1% 55.6% 11.1% 22.2%
  • 114. 11 16 2.25 4 2 2 8 11 16 3.00 3 7 1 1 4 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 50.0% 18.8% 43.8% 6.3% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.38 3 5 1 12 9 2.75 6 2 1 33.3% 55.6% 11.1 66.7% 22.2% 11.1 State 8 2.67 4 2 2 State 8 2.80 4 1 3 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.44 2 23 13 7 33 TOTAL 78 2.81 6 35 10 3 24 2.6% 29.5 16.7 9.0% 42.3 7.7% 44.9 12.8 3.8% 30.8% % % % % % Regional 70 2.41 Regional 70 2.82 Members Members Only Only
  • 115. 5. The CYDS initiative has provided a directory of Youth Development services, opportunities, and supports. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.50 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 3.17 2 3 1 1 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 2 5 2.67 2 1 2 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 2.00 1 1 2 4 4 2.00 1 1 2 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 2.33 1 2 4 5 7 2.67 1 2 4 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 6 6 -- 6 6 6 2.50 1 1 4 100.0% 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 7 5 2.00 1 2 1 1 7 5 2.60 3 2 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 8 2 1.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 2.60 3 2 4 10 9 2.50 3 3 3
  • 116. 33.3% 22.2% 44.4% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 11 16 2.63 1 3 4 8 11 16 3.17 3 8 1 4 6.3% 18.8% 25.0% 50.0% 18.8% 50.0% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.29 2 5 2 12 9 3.00 2 5 2 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% State 8 2.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.32 2 16 22 6 32 TOTAL 78 2.82 9 31 15 2 21 2.6% 20.5 28.2 7.7% 41.0% 11.5 39.7 19.2 2.6% 26.9% % % % % % Regional 70 2.36 Regional 70 2.81 Members Members Only Only
  • 117. 6. The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development calendar of activities, events, and grants training. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.50 2 1 1 2 1 1 7 3.00 2 3 2 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 2 5 2.00 1 1 1 2 2 5 2.67 2 1 2 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 3.00 4 4 4 2.75 3 1 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.33 1 2 4 5 7 2.67 1 2 4 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 6 6 1.00 1 5 6 6 2.00 3 3 16.7% 83.3% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.25 1 3 1 7 5 2.20 1 4 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 80.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 3.00 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 2.80 1 2 2 4 10 9 2.75 1 4 3 1
  • 118. 11.1% 22.2% 22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 44.4% 33.3% 11.1% 11 16 2.22 1 2 4 2 7 11 16 2.08 2 7 3 4 6.3% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 43.8% 12.5% 43.8% 18.8% 25.0% 12 9 2.29 2 5 2 12 9 2.44 4 5 22.2% 55.6% 22.2% 44.4% 55.6% State 8 1.71 5 2 1 State 8 2.10 2 2 1 3 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.28 4 14 24 8 28 TOTAL 78 2.47 7 19 31 4 17 5.1% 17.9% 30.8 10.3 35.9 9.0% 24.4 39.7 5.1% 21.8% % % % % % Regional 70 2.37 Regional 70 2.50 Members Members Only Only
  • 119. 7. The CYDS initiative has resulted in blended funding for the purpose of achieving desired youth outcomes. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 2.50 1 2 2 1 1 1 7 3.17 2 3 1 1 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 2 5 2.67 1 1 1 2 2 5 2.00 1 1 1 2 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 4 4 3.00 2 1 1 4 4 2.25 1 1 2 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 2.50 2 2 3 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 1.00 2 4 6 6 2.00 1 1 1 3 33.3% 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 7 5 2.00 1 1 1 2 7 5 1.50 2 2 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.20 2 2 1 4 10 9 3.28 5 2 2
  • 120. 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 44.4% 55.5% 22.2% 22.2% 11 16 2.40 1 3 5 1 6 11 16 2.50 1 4 7 4 6.3% 18.8% 31.3% 6.3% 37.5% 6.3% 25.0% 43.8% 25.0% 12 9 1.83 5 1 3 12 9 1.88 7 1 1 55.6% 11.1% 33.3% 77.8% 11.1% 11.1% State 8 2.14 1 6 1 State 8 2.25 1 3 4 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 37.5% 50.0% TOTAL 78 2.36 7 12 23 8 28 TOTAL 78 2.47 9 17 26 7 19 9.0% 15.4 29.5 10.3 35.9 11.5 21.8 33.3 9.0% 24.4% % % % % % % % Regional 70 2.40 Regional 70 2.48 Members Members Only Only
  • 121. 8. The CYDS initiative has focused on both desired outcomes for youth and on system changes to support youth outcomes State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 3.00 2 4 1 1 7 3.43 3 4 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 42.9% 27.1% 2 5 3.00 1 2 1 1 2 5 3.40 2 3 20.0 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 4 4 2.33 1 2 1 4 4 2.33 1 2 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 3 4 5 7 3.00 1 4 1 1 42.9% 57.1% 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 6 6 3.00 3 3 6 6 2.75 3 1 2 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 3.00 3 2 7 5 3.00 4 1 60.0% 40.0% 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 1.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.40 2 3 4 10 9 3.44 5 3 1 22.2% 33.3% 44.4% 55.65 33.3% 11.1% 11 16 2.70 2 5 1 2 6 11 16 2.92 3 6 2 1 4
  • 122. 12.5% 31.3% 6.3% 12.5% 37.5% 18.8% 37.5% 12.5% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.71 5 2 2 12 9 2.89 8 1 55.6% 22.2% 22.2% 89.9% 11.1% State 8 3.29 2 5 1 State 8 3.40 2 3 3 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.91 9 34 6 4 25 TOTAL 78 3.08 16 40 9 1 12 11.5% 43.6% 7.7% 5.1% 32.1% 20.5% 51.3% 11.5% 1.3% 15.4% Regional 70 2.85 Regional 70 3.05 Members Members Only Only
  • 123. 9. Within the CYDS initiative, decisions affecting youth and communities have been made with youth and community participation. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.71 1 4 1 1 1 7 3.86 6 1 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 14.3% 2 5 2.50 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 3.80 4 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 80.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.33 2 1 1 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.00 2 5 5 7 2.80 4 1 2 28.6% 71.5% 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 6 6 2.50 1 1 4 6 6 3.00 3 3 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.75 3 1 1 7 5 2.60 3 2 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 3.50 1 1
  • 124. 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.33 1 2 6 10 9 3.33 4 4 1 11.1% 22.2% 66.7% 44.4% 44.4% 11.1% 11 16 2.22 1 3 2 3 7 11 16 2.08 1 2 6 3 4 6.3% 18.8% 12.5% 18.8% 43.8% 6.3% 12.5% 37.5% 18.8% 25.0% 12 9 2.13 2 5 1 1 12 9 2.44 4 5 22.2% 55.6% 11.1% 11.1% 44.4% 55.6% State 8 2.29 1 1 4 1 1 State 8 3.40 2 3 3 12.5% 12.5% 50.0% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.42 5 19 18 8 28 TOTAL 78 2.92 19 27 16 4 12 6.4% 24.4% 23.1% 10.3% 35.9% 24.4% 34.6% 20.5% 5.1% 15.4% Regional 70 2.44 Regional 70 2.89 Members Members Only Only
  • 125. 11. As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, system changes have been observed. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.17 2 3 1 1 1 7 2.86 6 1 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 14.3% 2 5 2.50 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2.75 1 1 2 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.67 1 2 1 4 4 2.25 1 2 1 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.00 1 6 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 14.3% 85.7% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 2.00 1 1 1 3 6 6 2.00 1 2 1 2 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.00 3 2 7 5 2.00 4 1 60.0% 40.0% 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 2.80 1 2 2 4 10 9 3.00 3 4 1 1 11.1% 22.2% 22.2% 44.4% 33.3% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1%
  • 126. 11 16 2.33 1 4 1 3 7 11 16 2.33 2 4 2 4 4 6.3% 25.0% 6.3% 18.8% 43.8% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12 9 2.00 1 3 1 4 12 9 2.57 5 1 1 2 11.1% 33.3% 11.1% 44.4% 55.6% 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% State 8 2.57 4 3 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.34 4 15 21 7 31 TOTAL 78 2.58 7 30 17 8 16 5.1% 19.2% 26.9% 9.0% 39.7% 9.0% 38.5% 21.8% 10.3% 20.5% Regional 70 2.30 Regional 70 2.54 Members Members Only Only
  • 127. 11. As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, there have been increased regional-to-state and state-to-regional linkages. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.86 1 5 1 1 7 3.14 1 6 14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% 85.7% 2 5 2.75 1 2 1 1 2 5 2.75 1 2 1 1 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 4 4 3.00 1 2 1 4 4 2.75 1 1 2 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 2.67 2 1 4 5 7 2.75 3 1 3 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 6 6 3.00 2 4 6 6 3.00 3 3 33.3% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 7 5 2.00 3 2 7 5 2.50 2 2 1 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.00 1 1 8 2 2.00 2 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 10 9 3.50 3 3 3 10 9 3.33 4 4 1 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%
  • 128. 11 16 2.63 1 4 2 1 8 11 16 2.58 1 6 4 1 4 6.3% 25.0% 12.5% 6.3% 50.0% 6.3% 37.5% 25.0% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.75 6 2 1 12 9 2.56 5 4 66.7% 22.2% 11.1% 55.6% 44.4% State 8 3.00 1 5 1 1 State 8 3.00 5 3 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.83 8 31 11 3 25 TOTAL 78 2.81 8 37 16 2 15 10.3% 39.7% 14.1% 3.8% 32.1% 10.3% 47.4% 20.5% 2.6% 19.2% Regional 70 2.80 Regional 70 2.79 Members Members Only Only
  • 129. 12. The Regional CYDS initiative has complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region. State-Level Effort Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No N= Mean SA A D SD No Region Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, Resp. %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) %) %) (Freq, %) %) 1 7 2.83 1 4 1 1 1 7 3.71 5 2 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 28.6% 2 5 2.67 1 1 1 2 2 5 3.20 2 2 1 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.75 1 1 2 4 4 2.75 1 1 2 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5 7 3.00 3 4 5 7 3.33 2 4 1 42.9% 57.1% 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% 6 6 3.00 2 4 6 6 3.00 4 2 33.3% 66.7% 66.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.50 1 1 3 7 5 2.75 3 1 1 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 8 2 3.00 1 1 8 2 3.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.40 2 3 4 10 9 3.56 5 4
  • 130. 22.2% 33.3% 44.4% 55.6% 44.4% 11 16 2.43 4 2 1 9 11 16 3.08 4 6 1 1 4 25.0% 12.5% 6.3% 56.3% 25.0% 37.5% 6.3% 6.3% 25.0% 12 9 2.67 4 2 3 12 9 2.75 6 2 1 44.4% 22.2% 33.3% 66.7% 22.2% 11.1% State 8 3.17 1 5 2 State 8 3.20 1 4 3 12.5% 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% TOTAL 78 2.84 6 29 7 3 33 TOTAL 78 3.18 21 37 7 1 12 7.7% 37.2% 9.0% 3.8% 42.3% 26.9% 47.4% 9.0% 1.3% 15.4% Regional 70 2.79 Regional 70 3.18 Members Members Only Only
  • 131. 13. The approach our region took to organizing, planning and implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative has been effective. Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.71 5 2 71.4% 28.6% 2 5 3.75 3 1 1 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 4 4 2.50 1 1 1 1 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.00 1 3 1 2 14.3% 42.9% 14.3% 28.6% 6 6 3.00 4 2 66.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.80 4 1 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 10 9 3.33 5 3 1 55.6% 33.3% 11.1%
  • 132. 11 16 2.92 2 7 3 4 12.5% 43.8% 18.8% 25.0% 12 9 2.88 1 5 2 1 11.1% 55.6% 22.2% 11.1% State 8 -- 8 100.0% TOTAL 78 3.08 18 31 9 2 18 23.1% 39.7% 11.5% 2.6% 23.1% Regional 70 3.08 Members Only
  • 133. 14. Our region was fully prepared for the Regional CYDS Initiative through the various regional and state meetings offered by the State School to Work Office and School and Main. Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.14 3 2 2 42.9% 28.6% 28.6% 2 5 2.33 2 1 2 40.0% 20.% 40.0% 4 4 3.25 2 1 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 2.40 2 3 2 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 6 6 2.00 4 2 66.7% 33.3% 7 5 2.80 4 1 80.0% 20.0% 8 2 2.50 1 1 50.0% 50.0%
  • 134. 10 9 3.25 3 4 1 1 33.3% 44.4% 11.1% 11.1% 11 16 1.91 2 6 3 5 12.5% 37.5% 18.8% 31.3% 12 9 2.13 2 5 1 1 22.2% 55.6% 11.1% 11.1% State 8 -- 8 100.0% TOTAL 78 2.54 8 20 24 5 21 10.3% 25.6% 30.8% 6.4% 26.9% Regional 70 2.54 Members Only
  • 135. 15. The system being established through our Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable and will allow us to more adequately insure that youth in the region will become healthy, educated, employable and connected through successful participation in family and community life. Regional Effort N= Mean SA A D SD No Resp. Region (Freq, (Freq, %) (Freq, (Freq, (Freq, %) %) %) %) 1 7 3.43 4 2 1 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 2 5 3.00 3 2 60.0% 40.0% 4 4 2.75 2 1 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 5 7 3.40 2 3 2 28.6% 42.9% 28.6% 6 6 2.50 1 1 4 16.7% 16.7% 66.7% 7 5 3.00 1 3 1 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8 2 3.00 2 100.0% 10 9 3.44 5 3 1 55.6% 33.3% 11.1%
  • 136. 11 16 3.04 4 5 3 4 25.0% 31.0% 18.8% 25.0% 12 9 3.00 1 6 1 1 11.1% 66.7% 11.1% 11.1% State 8 -- 8 100.0% TOTAL 78 3.13 19 28 9 1 21 24.4% 35.9% 11.5% 1.3% 26.9% Regional 70 3.13 Members Only
  • 137. Regional Differences Marks (X) Indicate Questions with Regional Means of 3.0 (Agree) or Greater for State-Level Effort Perceived Outcome Survey Questions for State-Level Effort Regio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 n 1 x x 2 x x x 4 x x x 5 x x x x 6 x x x x x x 7 x x x x 8 x 10 x x x x x x x x x 11 x 12 Marks (X) Indicate Questions with Regional Means of 3.0 (Agree) or Greater for Regional Effort Perceived Outcome Survey Questions for Regional Effort Regio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 n 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 2 x x x x x x x x 4 x 5 x x x x x x 6 x x x x x x 7 x x x x x 8 x x x x x x 10 x x x x x x x x x x x x x 11 x x x x 12 x x
  • 138. ote: Region 3 and Region 9 did not participate in the Perceived Outcome Assessment survey. Summary of Means for Questions 1-12 – State-Level Effort –By Regional Participants Mean figured on a 4 point scale Strongly Agree = 4 Agree = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Mean R1 2.86 3.00 2.67 2.60 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.71 2.17 2.86 2.83 2.70 R2 3.00 3.00 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.00 2.67 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.75 2.67 2.62 R4 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.33 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.33 2.33 2.67 3.00 2.75 2.68 R5 3.00 3.00 2.67 2.50 2.33 2.33 2.50 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.67 3.00 2.68 R6 3.33 3.00 3.00 2.00 -- 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.58 R7 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.33 2.00 2.25 2.00 3.00 2.75 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.51 R8 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.73 R10 3.29 3.50 3.17 3.00 2.60 2.80 3.20 3.40 3.33 2.80 3.50 3.40 3.17 R11 3.00 2.60 2.67 2.25 2.63 2.22 2.40 2.70 2.22 2.33 2.63 2.43 2.51 R12 2.88 2.75 2.67 2.38 2.29 2.29 1.83 2.71 2.13 2.00 2.75 2.67 2.47 Summary of Means for Questions 1-15 – Regional Effort –By Regional Participants Mean figured on a 4 point scale Strongly Agree = 4 Agree = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Mean 3.4 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.8 R1 2.86 3.14 3.71 3.71 3.14 3.43 3.36 3 1 9 3 7 0 7 3 6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.0 3.4 3.8 R2 2.75 275 3.20 3.75 2.33 3.00 3.05 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0
  • 139. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Mean 2.7 2.5 2.5 1.6 2.0 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.5 R4 2.25 2.75 2.75 2.50 3.25 2.75 2.52 5 0 0 7 0 5 5 3 0 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.8 R5 2.75 2.75 3.33 3.00 2.40 3.40 2.90 0 0 5 0 7 7 5 0 0 3.0 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.7 3.0 R6 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.50 2.61 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.2 1.5 3.0 2.6 R7 2.00 2.50 2.75 2.80 2.80 3.00 2.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 3.5 R8 2.50 2.00 3.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.7 3.2 3.4 3.3 R10 3.00 3.33 3.56 3.33 3.25 3.44 3.26 6 4 9 0 0 5 8 4 3 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.0 2.5 2.9 2.0 R11 2.33 2.58 3.08 2.92 1.91 3.04 2.67 2 3 4 0 7 8 0 2 8 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.4 R12 2.57 2.56 2.75 2.88 2.13 3.00 2.61 7 8 4 5 0 4 8 9 4 Level of Agreement on Perception of Regional and State Efforts Mean figured on a 4 point scale Strongly Agree = 4 Agree = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Q. Regional Perspective N=70 State Perspective N=8 # State Effort Regional Effort State Effort Regional Effort Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 1 2.96 3.08 3.00 3.40 2 2.87 3.05 3.00 3.00 3 2.71 2.80 2.29 2.60 4 2.41 2.82 2.67 2.80 5 2.36 2.81 2.00 3.00 6 2.37 2.50 1.71 2.10
  • 140. Q. Regional Perspective N=70 State Perspective N=8 # State Effort Regional Effort State Effort Regional Effort Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 <3.00 >3.00 1 2.96 3.08 3.00 3.40 2 2.87 3.05 3.00 3.00 7 2.40 2.48 2.14 2.25 8 2.85 3.05 3.29 3.40 9 2.44 2.89 2.29 3.40 10 2.30 2.54 2.57 3.00 11 2.80 2.79 3.00 3.00 12 2.79 3.18 3.17 --- 3.20 13 --- --- 3.08 --- --- --- --- 14 --- --- 2.54 --- --- --- --- 15 --- --- 3.13 --- --- --- ---
  • 141. CYDS 2002-2003 Perceived Outcome Assessment Outcome/Purpose Statement 1. The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development framework, philosophy, goals and definitions which are shared by relevant partners for planning and decision making. 1-7 (State-A, Region-SA) I think we have reached a very strong collaborative in region 1 and I only hope the state partners are as well blended in the task. 5-6 (State-A, Region-A) It’s attempting to 6-2 (State-A, Region-D) Regionally, I think we could improve on this. We shared them, but could have discussed them in more detail up front and as we proceeded through meetings. 7-2 (State-A, Region-D) The potential is there, but not yet 7-3 (State-no response, Region-SA) The framework has been initiated, more work needs to be done. 8-1 (State-D, Region-A) The state level effort has been demonstrated to me at all. 8-2 (State-D, Region-A) Everything seemed very broad 11-3 (State-A, Region-D) The framework for our region was in place prior to receiving CYDS funds. 11-11 (State-A, Region-D) I came into the process late and have not been able to be as active as I would like. However, in Region 11 local representatives were excluded from the effort initially. The real action around youth development happens at the community level so the lack of participation by the local representatives was a mistake. That situation has recently been rectified but the result is the region is further behind than it could be. 11-16 (State-no response, Region-A) We had already formed a regional partnership when this opportunity cam around. The funding was icing on the already half baked cake. 12-7 (State-A, Region-D) Definitions created have not been shared by partners in their individual planning and decisions. 13-4 (State-A, Region-SA) These are beginning to be understood by state level youth policy & program directors and used to influence planning across program areas within and across divisions. 13-6 (State-D, Region-A) State Partners are talking about doing this, but it hasn’t occurred as yet. But I think we’re on the right track 13-8 (State-A, Region-SA) The State Partners Group had a solid start & plans, But has not been convened, staffed nor endorsed to implement Collaborative efforts.
  • 142. 2. The CYDS initiative has promoted a common set of desired youth outcomes which are shared by the relevant partners 1-7 (State-A, Region-SA) I believe that our efforts have worked to put in place a system that will remain after the program is gone. 5-3 (State-A, Region-A) In-Process 5-6 (State-A, Region-A) It’s attempting to 6-1 (State-no response, Region-D) We are not at this stage yet; we don’t know what the common set of desired youth Outcomes is at this point. Our surveys aren’t due for a few more weeks. 7-2 (State-A, Region-D) The potential is there, but not yet 8-2 (State-D, Region-A) Everything seemed very broad 10-1 (State-no rating, Region-A) not familiar enough on state level 11-3 (State-D, Region-D) Funds very restrictive 11-6 (State-D, Region-D) Fund Restrictions 11-11 (State-A, Region-D) see above comment (I came into the process late and have not been able to be as active as I would like. However, in Region 11 local representatives were excluded from the effort initially. The real action around youth development happens at the community level so the lack of participation by the local representatives was a mistake. That situation has recently been rectified but the result is the region is further behind than it could be.) 11-13 (State-A, Region-SA) While concept is good, clear direction or guidance from state is sometimes slow or lacking. Regional efforts enthusiastic and well-intended. 11-16 (State-no response, Region-A) We had already formed a regional partnership when this opportunity cam around. The funding was icing on the already half baked cake. 12-7 (State-D, Region-D) While there is a common set of outcomes, they have yet to translate through the levels. 13-6 (State-D, Region-A) same comment as #1 (State Partners are talking about doing this, but it hasn’t occurred as yet. But I think we’re on the right track) 3. The relevant CYDS partner groups have designed, promoted and made possible the joint training and development of staff.
  • 143. 1-3 (State-D, Region –A) The state partners have discussed the idea, but I have not heard of any plans yet. We are doing this at the regional level. 1-7 (State-A, Region-A) We have done cross training and inter agency training as the result of our regional partners working together…very fulfilling to see collaborative efforts at work. 5-3 (State-A, Region-A) Being Planned 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 5-5 (State-no rating, Region -A) Don’t Know about State-Level 5-6 (State-A, Region-A) It’s being worked on 5-7 (State-no response, Region-no response) Don’t know/cannot answer 6-2 (State-A, Region-D) Again, we could have spent more time on these activities up front. 6-6 (State-no response, Region-D) I have not participated in training but unknown at the state level 7-2 (State-A, Region-A) There has been one meeting at the regional level and several state- wide meetings. Also, one USDOL Region 3 workshop session 8-1 (State-SD, Region-A) This has happened in our region but was happening before the initiative. 10-1 (State-unsure, Region -A) probably needs more development – or more communication to regional and county level 10-2 (State-A, Region –SA) All 14 counties in our region are in the process of creating and framework and conducting a comprehensive youth development assessment. We’ve utilized resources from several different agencies/organizations to do this work 10-7 (State-no response, Region-no response) I don’t know 11-6 (State-D, Region-A) Very little State support to local level 11-11 (State-A, Region-D) The only joint training prior to last week was the conference the state initiative sponsored at which regional representatives participated. Last week regional partners did bring together local Family Connections coordinators to request their input. 11-13 (State-D, Region-D) Attempt to contract out service met with mixed and less than desired results. Corrective actions taken. 12-7 (State-D, Region-D) This is happening somewhat but needs much more emphasis 13-1 (State-SD, Region-SD) Comments: Unfortunately this has not happened even though it should be on the agenda for state level partners at least. I don’t think it has happened at the regional level. Not sure though. 13-4 (State-D, Region-SA) This is premature at the state level– we are beginning to plan for
  • 144. this in DHR – a milestone for FY’04. Inconsistent at region level; some regions have done this well. 13-7 (State-A, Region-A) This has occurred among some partners. There is still room for more development in this area especially involving a broader range of partners. It is by no means “systemic” at this point but in the time the work has evolved, it has opened the door to continued opportunities. 4. A Youth Development resource matrix has been developed to guide CYDS planning and resource allocation 1-7 (State-A, Region-A) With the help of Wellisys Group we were able to set this matrix up and to have follow-up with the results being tractable. 4-1 (State-no response, Region-A) Under development at regional level 4-2 (State-A, Region-SD) Neither party (survey completed by 2 people) to this survey has seen the matrix 5-2 (No ratings) Don’t know. 5-3 (no ratings) Cannot answer because do not know 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 5-6 (State-D, Region-D) Not yet, this will be one of the end products probably in late summer. 5-7 (State-no response, Region-no response) Don’t know/cannot answer 6-2 (State-no response Region-no response) Not sure at state, working on regionally 6-6 (State-no response, Region-A) the resource guide is being completed for our region unknown abut state activities 7-1 (No ratings) I HAVE NO IDEA. 7-2 (State-A, Region-A) The potential is there, but not yet 8-2 (State-no response, Region-A) I am not aware of the state-level effort 10-2 (Region – D) Will be done, but isn’t complete at this time. I’m not sure about the state- level. 10-7 (State-no response, Region-no response) I don’t know
  • 145. 11-6 (State-SD, Region-SA) Strongly disagree, the state has done nothing; region planning was much better and had been done prior to receiving guidelines 11-13 (State-A, Region-A) In the works. Programs being provided as matrix is completed. 12-1 (State-D, Region –A) We are currently working on this with a contractor, but I have seen nothing on state level. 12-7 (State-D, Region-A) working on it 13-1 (State-A, Region-A) Resource mapping was done with the SLP and with in some individual regions as part of planning. 13-4 (State-D, Region-A) Some regions are developing this. 13-7 (State-D, Region-A) Work of the State Level Partners needs to re-focus now that regions have some success and re-engage in this activity. Regions will prove to have been more successful in this area. 5. The CYDS initiative has provided a directory of Youth Development services, opportunities, and supports. 1-3 (State-D, Region-D) We have made some attempts at collecting resource info at the state, regional and county level. The most current complete listing is at the county level, since most counties have resource directories listing all agencies and programs. But nothing has been published at the state or regional level. 1-7 (State-A, Region-SA) Collaborative efforts can be seen and not only on this project but on others within the group. 4-1 (State-no response, Region-SA) the formal resource directory under development, but not working and sharing resources has begun 5-3 (no ratings) Cannot answer definitively since do not have a copy 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 5-6 (State-D, Region-D) This will be one of the end products probably in late summer/early fall. 5-7 (State-no response, Region-no response) Don’t know/cannot answer 6-1 (State-no response, Region-D) This will be done upon the completion of our surveys. 6-2 (State-no response Region-no response) Not sure at state, working on regionally 6-6 (State-no response, Region-A) in progress for region but unknown for state
  • 146. 7-3 (State-no response, Region-A) It will provide this. Implementation ongoing. 7-4 (State-A, Region-A) upon completion 8-2 (State-no response, Region-A) I am not aware of the state-level effort 10-1 (State-D, Region-D)I’ve only seen this on county level; if it’s being done on state level, I’m not aware. 10-2 (No ratings) Again, this is something that will be done when our assessment process is complete. 11-6 (State-D, Region-A) Now they have it but not before we worked on it. 11-13 (State-SA, Region-SA) Each partner has provided 12-1 (State-no rating, Region-A)The listing is being developed along with a website for providers and youth. 12-2 (State-no rating, Region-A) Region 12 is in the process of gathering this information 13-1 (State-no rating, Region-A) Some of the regions are doing this as a strategy for their region. 12-7 (State-D, Region-D) has not happened yet 13-4 (State-D, Region-A) State – not yet; Region – underway. 13-7 (State-D, Region-A) Most regions are undergoing activities to gather (or have gathered this information). The challenge for all will be how effectively this collective information is used in future decision making, planning and resource allocation. Such a “directory” should be an on-going, living, breathing process not a “product” for a desk drawer. True sustainability and effectiveness will come in regions that use this information to influence policy and practice. The state has not achieved the same level of results. State Level efforts need to be re-focused since change in administration has occurred and first legislative session has ended under new leadership. 6.The CYDS initiative has provided a Youth Development calendar of activities, events, and grants training. 1-3 (State-SD, Region-D) Again, there has been discussion of this, but nothing concrete has been sent out. It’s a great idea though. 1-7 (State-SA, Region-SA) Please look at our information from region 1 on the Youth Council conferences held and the results of the input from our youth participants 5-3 (no ratings) Cannot answer since do not have a copy. Know things are being planned
  • 147. 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 5-7 (State-no response, Region-no response) Don’t know/cannot answer 6-2 (State-no response Region-no response) Not sure, can’t answer question 7-2 (State-D, Region-D) not yet 7-4 (State-A, Region-A) upon completion 8-2 (State-no response, Region-D) I am not aware of the state-level effort 10-1 (State-unsure, Region-A)unfamiliar on state level sharing; our regional public health adolescent health/youth development coordinator very involved 10-2 (No ratings) We are still in the assessment phase of our planning. This is something that will be created. 11-6 (State-SD, Region-SD) I have seen nothing regarding this 11-11 (State-A, Region-D Although I cannot attend the meetings due to scheduling conflicts I do receive the minutes and have not seen a calendar 12-1 (State-no rating, Region-A)Calendar of activities and events will be displayed on the website when completed. Training of use of the website is included. Additional training regarding Youth Development has been limited 13-1 (State-SD, Region-SD Not real sure about all the regions but I know we have not done this at the state level. I have however put a page on our STW web site for CYDS info. This should be expanded to show more youth development related activities and events and training opportunities. 13-3 (State-D, Region-no response) don’t know of this 13-4 (State-D, Region-D) Underway in both places – not consistently across state 13-7 (State-D, Region-AD) Really not sure from regional perspective. An initial grid was completed for the State Level Partners. Re-organization of State Level Partners is needed to update and re-energize efforts. 7. The CYDS initiative has resulted in blended funding for the purpose of achieving desired youth outcomes. 1-3 (State-D, Region-A) I have not seen this yet at the state level. Blended funding does occur at the county level most often. Our regional group has begun some blended funding activities due to the CYDS initiative.
  • 148. 1-7 (State-A, Region-A) We have tried to get some funding back to the county level as well as offer the help and development on the regional level with developing youth councils that will exist after the funding period ends. 4-1 (State-SA, Region-A) Efforts have begun at regional level, but not fully involved 5-3 (no ratings) Know this is desired. 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 5-6 (State-A, Region-A) There are some customers receiving joint funding 6-2 (State-no response Region-no response) Not sure, can’t answer question 7-1 (State-D, Region- D) OUR OWN FUNDING IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH TO GET FOR OUR OWN GOALS, LET ALONE BLENDING FUNDS. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE IT TO. 7-4 (State-no response, Region-no response) too soon to answer 8-2 (State-no response, Region-D) I am not aware of the state-level effort 10-1 (State-unsure, Region-SA and A) Through a strong Regional Partners Network 10-2 (State-A, Region- SA) School to Work funds, PH Youth development funds and Family Connection funds have been utilized for this effort in Region 10. There are many other partners who have provided assistance as well. 11-3 (State-SD, Region-A) Our region is starting initiatives to achieve this goal. 11-6 (State-D, Region-A) We have started some of this already. 11-11 (State-A, Region-D The comments I have heard related to funding had to do with frustration related to procedures required by DTAE which had nothing to do with blended funding. 11-13 (State-SA, Region-SA) : State has been very helpful in working out details and thru problems. 12-1 (State-no rating, Region-D) No additional funding local has been secured, not aware of state progress 12-7 (State-SD, Region-SD) Silo funding still exists, however, MHDDAD regional prevention funding has supported some of the cyd efforts in the regions 13-7 (State-D, Region-D) The CYDS initiative has not had enough relationship development and specific successes to have reached this higher level of system building (at state or local level) although some isolated examples may exist. 13-8 (State-D, Region-no response) Don’t know
  • 149. 8. The CYDS initiative has focused on both desired outcomes for youth and on system changes to support youth outcomes. 1-7 (State-SA, Region-SA) Our regional plan was done with results in mind and we will be able to see the results of our youth plan many years down the road after the program has gone away. 5-3 (State-no rating, Region-SA) Know this is desired and communication lines are open 7-2 (State-A, Region-A) Not yet on system changes 7-4 (State-no response, Region-no response) too soon to answer 8-2 (State-no response, Region-D) I am not aware of the state-level effort 11-6 (State-SD, Region-SA) Outcomes are focused. 11-11 (State-A, Region-A) There has been some conversation. To the best of my knowledge these conversations have not led to implementation yet. 11-13 (State-SA, Region-SA) Direction is becoming clearer. Initiative in place. Much work remains to support outcomes due to the very diverse circumstances in region. Very hopeful. 12-7 (State-D, Region-D) Not nearly enough 13-7 (State-SA, Region-SA) The CYDS concept has been relatively widely embraced in terms of results and the system changes to make it happen. The initiative needs more time to further develop this dual approach to infrastructure and results. 9. Within the CYDS initiative, decisions affecting youth and communities have been made with youth and community participation. 1-3 (State-A, Region-SA) I think the state partners brought in info from the local level about concerns of youth and the community, but more indirectly. Our regional group utilized our local youth councils for input, as well as, the Family Connection partners. 1-7 (State-SA, Region-SA) I am especially happy with the way we have carried out this particular portion of the regional plan. 5-3 (no ratings) In –Process ( Regional). Not sure about state level effort. 5-4 (State-no rating, Region A) A great deal of effort has been made, at least initially, to welcome all comers. In addition, information has been presented a Family Connection
  • 150. and Communities In Schools meetings about CYDS planning. 5-5 (State-no rating, Region -A) Don’t Know about State-Level 6-1 (State-no response, Region-A) This is being done but again, our surveys aren’t complete yet. 7-2 (State-D, Region-D) The decisions have not been made yet. 7-3 (State-no response, Region-D) It has been very difficult to involve youth. 8-1 (State-D, Region-SA) Youth take the lead in all decisions in our region. 8-2 (State-no response, Region-A) I am not aware of the state-level effort 10-1 (State-unsure, Region -SA) Some youth attended youth development institute in Sept. 02, from selected regions; I’m unfamiliar with who listened to them or how their input was put to use. 10-2 (Region-A) Not sure about state level 11-11 (State-A, Region-D) The lack of local participation has impacted this outcome being accomplished. 11-13 (State-SA, Region-SA) Absolutely. As with any multi-juriditional collaborative, there's alway issues to be addressed. Cooperation is very good and improving. 12-7 (State-SD, Region-A) I do not see this happening AT ALL at the State level! Youth have been almost excluded from this initiative since everything set up is during times that youth cannot participate. Some regional efforts have been made and FCP youth advisory councils are beginning to involve youth in participating. 13-1 (State-SD, Region-A) The regions have done this more than the State. 13-3 (State-D, Region-no response) ok 13-4 (State-D, Region-A) The state-level decisions have involved regional partners in decisions; region partners are involving community and youth in decisions at that level. 13-7 (State-A, Region-SA) The CYDS process has been open and new partners who have not previously worked together or known of each other have been excited to share information and learn new programs and approaches. This is particularly true of Dept of Labor and Juvenile Justice; Public Health and Family Connection; Workforce Investment, Public Health, and Juvenile Justice; Family Connection and Workforce; and the involvement of Dept Community Affairs and Dept. of Industry, Trade, and Tourism working together as partners. Many regional partners have also discovered or re-discovered the Regional Development Centers. At the state level, much progress has been made internally with the Dept of Human Resources and its youth serving programs and services. 10. As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, system changes have been observed.
  • 151. 1-3 (State-D, Region-A) I am not aware of any state level system changes. We are seeing regional level system changes through blended funding, joint training sessions and new decision making processes for program development and funding. 1-7 (State-A, Region-A) The process is underway and I do believe we have delivered a plan that will continue after the funding goes away because of the importance of the objectives we are working on. 5-3 (State-no rating, Region-A) Regionally, the lines of communication are between providers seem to be open esp as relates to strategic planning. However, it would be good if more agencies who conduct strategic in-depth planning process to work more closely together so that even more in-depth data could be obtained. Implementation and blended funding is the next step. 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 5-5 (State-no rating, Region -A) Don’t Know about State-Level 5-7 (State-no response, Region-no response) Don’t know/cannot answer 7-4 (State-no response, Region-no response) too soon to answer 8-2 (State-no response, Region-D) I am not aware of the state-level effort 10-1 (State-D, Region-A) on local county level: collaborative involvement 10-2 (State-A, Region-SA) We’ve seen cross-training opportunities, shared information systems, and non-traditional partners come to the table for this initiative. 10-6 (State-D, Region-D) Don’t think there has been enough time yet to gauge real system change. 11-6 (State-SD, Region-SD) None to this point. 11-9 (State-D, Region-D) Don’t think there has been enough time yet to gauge real system change 11-11 (State-A, Region-A) At least regional partners are talking. 11-13 (State-SA, Region-SA) Again, I think the effort and intent is evident but need time to effect change. Excellent initiative. 12-1 (State-no rating, Region-A) Systems change is a slow process although some things are changing I am not sure for how long or how effective they will be. Agency representation changes as positions are filled and each individual chooses for themselves what they will allow within their program. 12-7 (State-SD, Region-A) Do not see State level efforts and only minimally at regional 13-1 (State-D, Region-A) In a few Regions more than others and not at the state level yet. 13-7 (State-A, Region-SA) See comments in previous section above. (The CYDS process has been open and new partners who have not previously worked together or known of each other have been excited to share
  • 152. information and learn new programs and approaches. This is particularly true of Dept of Labor and Juvenile Justice; Public Health and Family Connection; Workforce Investment, Public Health, and Juvenile Justice; Family Connection and Workforce; and the involvement of Dept Community Affairs and Dept. of Industry, Trade, and Tourism working together as partners. Many regional partners have also discovered or re-discovered the Regional Development Centers. At the state level, much progress has been made internally with the Dept of Human Resources and its youth serving programs and services.) 11. As a result of the CYDS initiative thus far, there have been increased regional-to-state and state-to-regional linkages. 1-7 (State-SA, Region-SA) I have worked on this project as a private community person and not on the pay-roll of the state or agencies involved. I believe there should be more private business input on the state level especially. Who sits in my position on the state level??????? 2-1 (State-SD, Region-SD) Our regional group has been unable to connect with the local technical schools and Dept of Labor – we have had several attempts and no effort from either partner. It has been very frustrating and we decided to move on with our CYDS plans without them. 5-3 (State-no rating, Region-A) My observations are from the regional point of view. The increased linkages (from the regional level) have been from the result of local information sharing in inter-agency meetings, organization meetings, and strategic planning efforts. Not sure about the state level. However, in some of the regional and/or county meetings there may have been some state level representatives. 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 7-2 (State-D, Region-D) No more than usual 7-4 (State-no response, Region-no response) too soon to answer 8-2 (State-no response, Region-D) I am not aware of the state-level effort 10-1 (State-A, Region-A) Through public health’s Adolescent Health and Youth Development Coordinator and the School-to-Work Coordinator at our local Technical College, information flows to our local community through a Regional Partners Network in Region 10. 11-6 (State-D, Region-D) I have seen very little; quarterly meetings 11-13 (State-A, Region-A) Probably more state-to-state at this point. Currently working on improving others. As a regional rep., I am encouraged and pleased with efforts to this point. 12-1 (State-D, Region-D) We are instructed what to do, but there is been very little
  • 153. ‘linkages’. This could be due to my limited time with the CYDS project. 12-7 (State-A, Region-A) I would agree that it is only a START. 13-1 (State-D, Region-A) I am unsure of what the linkages may be but tend to want to say that there are some regional to state linkages now that were not there before CYDS. I think the state is still state-to-community, not seeing the advantages of state-to-regional links. 12. The Regional CYDS initiative has complemented and enhanced previously existing linkages and collaborative efforts in communities and the region. 1-7 (State-A, Region-SA) Region 1 had a District level partners team that was meeting prior to the school to work program. I think that it helped us tremendously being able to go to this team for the assistance to carry out the charge and to set the system in place to carry out the charge of school to work. 2-1 (State-SD, Region-D) We ended up collaborating with the “usual suspects” without much luck with other partners. State level pressure on DTAE and DOL would have helped us at the Regional level. 5-3 (State-no rating, Region-SA) Unsure about State level effort. My observations are from the regional level (NEGA). 5-4 (State-no rating, Region-A) I have not been able to participate as much as I would have liked to, however, from what I have observed of the planning, strengthening and creating linkages has been built in the plan for a region wide summit. 7-1 (Region-A) I CANNOT COMMENT ON THE STATE LEVEL EFFORT. I HAVE NO IDEA. 7-4 (State-no response, Region-no response) too soon to answer 10-1 (State-no rating, Region-SA) not sure about state level 10-2 (State-A, Region-SA) Our region had already been meeting as a regional-level collaborative and we had a plan to address youth development through a literacy project. The CYDS initiative has certainly helped us to move forward. We now have an infrastructure in place to support this initiative. 11-6 (State-SD, Region-SA) Local links are strong but I see very little, if any, state links
  • 154. 11-11 (State-no response, Region-A) It has not to date but there is potential for the future. 11-13 (State-A, Region-A) Probably average at best. Improving as partners become comfortable and knowledgeable of each other. 12-7 (State-D, Region-A) Somewhat but still has a long way to go 13-7 (State-A, Region-A) Examples: School-to-Work and WIA working together, WIA and Family Connection working together, RDC’s being involved or driving leadership with new partners…. 13. The approach our region took to organizing, planning and implementing the Regional CYDS Initiative has been effective. 1-3 (Region-SA) I think we have moved ahead very quickly because we had an existing regional group which focused on youth issues and blended this initiative into this group. 1-7 (Region-SA) I am biased in this but think we have carried out the charge and I feel very proud of the work done on this effort. Partners meetings have gone on and work continued within the group whether I were present or not. The team should receive the praise for a job well done! 2-1 (Region-A)We went with the vision of the team that was available and willing to participate – had other organizations chosen to participate, our vision would have looked much different and we welcomed that – but with no response from DTAE and DOL, we had to progress with our vision without their input. 2-3 (Region-SA) We had a great person taking on the leadership and organization and also a youth rep. who handled most of the planning for the youth summit. 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 5-6 (Region-D) It’s too early to tell 7-2 (Region-A) To be determined 10-2 (Region-SA)We were organizing and planning before the initiative, but we have become more formalized since then. 10-6 (Region-A?) Has not been really long enough in time to tell at this point 11-6 (Region-A) The programs were organized with very little assistance. They will, however, produce long range results. 11-9 (Region-A?) Has not been really long enough in time to tell at this point
  • 155. 12-1 (Region-SA) There were some concerns early, but the group restarted and included all sectors of providers and the process has received higher participation rates. 12-2 (no rating) Region 12 has hired a consultant to gather information on services and gaps of services in Region 12. We had to rewrite our plan as there was not enough participation to get the process going. I feel that their has not been enough hands on T.A from the state. There has been a core group that has continued to work on this initiative. A web site will also be developed to give information regarding youth services 12-7 (Region-A) with several false starts 14. Our region was fully prepared for the Regional CYDS Initiative through the various regional and state meetings offered by the State School to Work Office and School and Main. 1-2 (Region-SA) Strong Collaboration already in place 1-3 (Region-SA) Many members of our regional group attended these meetings. It did help us to move forward. 1-4 (Region-D) I disagree that the various regional and state meetings “fully prepared” our region for the CYDS Initiative. Our region already had an existing regional partners collaborative which “prepared” us and the efforts by the state gave support for what we were already doing. I still think there has not been sufficient state level support for local efforts and not enough state level willingness to re-vamp existing policies, etc. to allow us to blend funding easily. 1-5 (Region-A) Our Region was prepared because of regional leadership and collaboration that had been in place since 1999. Regional Interagency Team (CAP-Community Action Partnership) had already begun system change and information sharing within the scope of our resources. Regional and State School to Work was helpful, but much of what was covered was redundant for our area. 1-7 (Region-A) School and Main and the State staff of School to Work have been very helpful to us in this project. I only wish we had received more time to prepare and carry out the plan before the funding ends. 2-1 (Region-SD)The regional and state meetings offered by School and Main were an absolute waste of time. S&M had their own agenda and didn’t (or weren’t willing to) work with a variety of partners. After our first regional S&M meeting (March 2002), most participants in our region refused to attend anything of S&M’s again – which
  • 156. resulted in fewer numbers from our region at future state meetings. 2-2 (Region-A) Because we have worked together through Family Connection and have been working on youth development for some time, I feel that we were very prepared. 2-3 (Region-A) Region 2 had been involved with CYD before the state initiative began. However, the state resources were very helpful in moving to a plan we could not have been otherwise. 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know 6-1 (Region-D) I don’t think this happened fully in our region. 6-2 (Region-D) Not enough members were able to attend the meetings. 6-5 (Region-D) A few partners were ready but not the region 6-6 (Region-D) I was not able to participate in all meetings however I never completely understood what was going on with this initiative. However, I do believe the information gathered will be very helpful with the next steps for strategic planning and coordination with positive end results 7-3 (Region-A) The process for obtaining funds granted has been a major obstacle to accomplishing goals. 10-1 (Region-A)???FULLY prepared? 10-7 (Region-no response) I don’t know 10-8 (Region-D) not fully prepared but it helped 11-3 (Region-SD) Our region was coordinating with no money. The CYDS grants were awarded with no guidelines and short implementation time frames. Our region learned by “trial & error.” Guidance to the state and region was minimal. 11-6 (Region-SD) We did it but with mostly local efforts and without guidelines in a timely manner. 11-11 (, Region-D) The regional effort seemed to flounder. 11-13 (Region-D) Region still struggling to catch up and/or implement due largely to the lack of adequate preparation. 11-16 (Region- no response) Most partners have many years of experience in collaboration— this was nothing new. 12-2 (Region-D) I have not felt that the facilitators of this iniatives were the best ones for this 12-7 (Region-SD) meetings were generally a waste of time with exception of the last one. The only benefit was the sharing. School and Main seemed to confuse folks more than help.
  • 157. 15. The system being established through our Regional CYDS Initiative is sustainable and will allow us to more adequately insure that youth in the region will become healthy, educated, employable and connected through successful participation in family and community life 1-3 (Region-SA) Since our regional group was pre-existing, it will continue, regardless of funding. The CYDS initiative has given this group a broader and more effective focus – all youth at all levels of need. 1-4 (Region-A) Our regional system is sustainable to some degree. However, the vision of a “fully sustainable” system that ensures (not ‘insures’) youth become healthy, educated, employable, and connected through successful participation in family and community life will not happen until the citizens of American change and re-claim moral responsibility for themselves and their children. All of the government interventions are, at best, a drop in the bucket and will have only minimal impact – the only lasting impact has to come from within the family itself and from adults willing to stand up and say to the government, the entertainment industry, and others that enough is enough and puts a stop to the smut, violence, and moral decline of our nation. 1-7 (Region-SA) When you look at the objectives we have taken on in developing a plan for region 1 you will see the desire not just on the state level to us…but on a community by community level to make a difference for our youth. Yes, I feel that our youth will receive the benefits of the work done on our School to Work Plan. Please remember that this is coming from someone not on the state payroll or agencies involved, but from an employer, taxpayer, father and servant of the community where I live. I am thankful to have been able to serve and hopefully, to have made some difference in the process of collaboration. 2-2 Region-A) We are already talking about regional efforts to hold another youth summit. This was very successful and allowed our youth to get to know each other and for many to take leadership roles at the Summit. 2-3 (Region-A) It will be difficult to continue at the level of progress we have been at this year due to the lack of funds without the CYD grant. This has enabled us to hire a person to concentrate on moving this work forward. We are extremely grateful for Sue Chandler, Marilyn Akers and all the state CYD team members who have contributed time and dollars to this effort!!!!!!! 5-2 (Region-A) I think the regional team is committed to the philosophy and principles of the initiative – operationalizing the concepts has been difficult. 5-3 (Region-SA) Desired outcome. Partners are very interested and recognize common goals and that all of us must work together to reach the overall desired outcome(s) for youth and their families. 5-4 (no ratings) Don’t know
  • 158. 6-1 (Region-D) We simply don’t know yet if this is the case; our surveys are due in early May and we are scheduling a youth summit for this summer that should answer this question. 6-2 (Region-no response) We’re not there yet. 7-1 (Region-A) OUR EFFORT IS SUSTAINABLE IF WE CAN EVER GET IT FINISHED. THERE HAS BEEN SOME KIND OF OBSTACLE TO EACH STEP. THE BUREAUCRATIC STATE SYSTEM AND TECHNICAL SCHOOL FISCAL AGENT SYSTEM IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WORK WITH IN A TIME-SENSITIVE PROJECT SUCH AS THIS. 7-2 (Region-A) To be determined 7-3 (Region-D) The planned outcome when youth were to be surveyed would have done this. Our plans were thwarted by the financial demise. 10-2 (Region-SA) There is a lot of energy around the regional level youth development work in Region 10. We plan to keep the Regional Partners Network going and will continue to plan strategically to ensure that we provided what youth need. We have, however, identified that we need a person who can coordinate all of this and keep it going. We haven’t identified a source of funding for that yet. 10-9 (Region-SA) This has been a GREAT asset to our region. We have been able to mobilize a regional partners network that has focused on youth development issues and a regional community assessment. This initiative has been key in our regional accomplishments this past year. Thank you. 11-3 (Region-SA) Our regional CYDS projects will be on-going and will even be enhanced with no additional funds. Our region addressed health/wellness, job readiness, education and infrastructure. 11-4 (Region-SA) We were already meeting as a collaborative 11-6 (Region-SA) All efforts will be continued with little or no funding from this source. 11-11 (Region-A and D) I just don’t know. There is potential. 11-13 (Region-A) Plan to sustain in place. Time will tell. Preparing to make necessary adjustments as needed. 12-7 (Region-no response) website will help sustain OTHER COMMENTS:
  • 159. 4-4 This was a waste of time, in my opinion, for all organizations involved. Decisions were made and carried out before the group met and without any group input. A lot of money was spent to poll things we already knew. Contracts were given to certain groups without sourcing and cost in mind. Several of the groups have few capabilities to help the CYDS initiative be more cost effective, but they did not want to explore the possibilities. Everyone involved were merely window dressings for the ability to apply for more funding. I can think of a million places the money could be better spent. 5-1 (Did not complete survey) I did receive the email, but I told Katy previously that I will not be participating in the survey because I’m only peripherally involved with this and do not know much about it. I’m only coming to the youth summit meetings with Kristie Burchett to help with marketing. 5-4 Please Note: Due to budget cuts, I was not able to serve on the committee as I had planned. I have been kept informed as a courtesy and in hopes of my returning. I have appreciated not only that effort, but an effort to include many other people in the planning. In hearing information presented about the plan for a region-wide summit, I feel that their work has been challenging and ambitious. I feel that the goals of the summit, if met, will have an impact on the youth in our region. If we can connect our assessment plans and combine data collections, share best practices and opportunities, and network at this summit, then our youth will be better served, will be better informed, and will ultimately have a better chance to be successful. I wish I could be more helpful on the survey, but have very little first-hand information I can share. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at--------------------- 6-3 (did not complete survey) . (email note) I only attended one meeting and received no follow-up information. I do not feel that I am qualified or informed enough to give relevant answers. (note on survey) I attended only one meeting and have had no follow-up information since that meeting. I do not feel that I am qualified or informed enough to make any judgments.
  • 160. 6-4 (did not complete survey) (email note) I cannot answer the questions in your survey because I have not seen any progress in any of the areas either Region wide or state wide. Besides an excellent training session at Lake Lanier, I am simply not aware of any other completed activities going on with CYDS. I do know that our region is conducting a Youth and Adult Survey to help identify areas of interest and concern. The results are not in on this yet and it would be premature for me to assess any part of the CYDS at this time. As a regional partner, I have not been well informed as to the progress towards goals as outlined in your survey. I had not responded before because there is not a NA - not applicable, Not enough info category to check. Projects such as this cannot be effectively evaluated the first year due to the significant system changes required to make progress in any one area. Good luck with this evaluation. I hope others have perceived greater progress than I. 7-3 (Note in email) I hope my comments are not viewed as a reflection on our regional effort. Our plans, strategies, and goals were indicative of a changed environment with positive outcomes for our region’s youth and youth services organizations. The inability to utilize the funds we were granted in a timely manner has had a significant negative impact on our ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 10-5 I received the CYDS survey and looked through it. Honestly, I am not involved in this project on that level. I am involved with the Region 10-Regional partners network Certified Literate Community Program project but know little to nothing about the youth initiative. 11-1 (Did not complete survey) I do not feel that I can fairly assess this because I have only attended 3 or 4 meetings due to other work responsibilities. Thank you 11-2 (Did not complete survey) Because I was an alternate member who only attended a few meetings I don’t believe I understood enough about the purpose, goals, and objectives of the Regional Comprehensive Youth Development System Initiative at the State or Regional Level to valid assessment, or express a enlighten opinion as to whether desired outcomes were achieved by the State or Regional Initiatives. Therefore, I will not venture to answer the questionnaire because of my lack of understanding and involvement.
  • 161. 11-4 The regions identified don’t correspond with actual regions. There does not appear to be a clear cut set of guidelines from the top with administration of funds. We’re constantly having to go up the chain for clarification and then it is not consistent. This does not address the new MHADAD regions nor has it been addressed from the top. 11-11 (Note in email) My response to the survey is attached. Please feel free to call me (229 388-0887) if I can provide clarification. 11-12 Since I have not been involved in this up to this point I don’t feel qualified to complete the survey. I feel I would skew the results of your survey die to lack of knowledge of CYDS. Thank you for the opportunity. 11-14 I have studied your survey and have not responded because I do not feel qualified to answer it. I am not sure how I got on the list. I assume it is by virtue of my position as Program Development Coordinator of 4-H in South District. Although I have received some correspondence, I have not really been involve4d and therefore do not feel qualified to answer. Thank you for your work on this. 11-15 I do not mean to sound overly negative in this assessment; however, I feel as though I must be honest. I have not been impressed with the CYDS process since I became involved with the process over a year ago. Answers to questions about the proper use of funding have been hard to come by, and often several conflicting answers have been given to the same question. The concept of developing a CYDS is a good one, and our various communities certainly have needs that such a strategy could address. But I’m not sure the current process is the best way to address those needs. A couple of things that would help out would be a clearer set of objectives that we are working to accomplish, and maybe less stringent rules concerning how the money can/should be spent. I gathered from the last state meeting that other districts are facing the same challenges we are, and I have spoken to at least one regional partner from a neighboring district whose comments have mirrored mine. That being said, I do believe that we will accomplish some good things for the youth in our district (and I am thankful for that), but I think that we can do so much more if the system is tweaked a bit. 12-4 I regret this survey appears to be negative. However, my involvement n this project has been very limited. I feel the project was presented well by the state team, but the regional team has been unable to meet the goals it set in motion. In order to be involved and a member of a regional team, each member must be notified of meetings, changes in direction and focus. This had not been happening in our region. Perhaps I am the only person that had been dropped from the mailing list and, if so, I regret that has happened. The few meetings where I was notified, I observed several good ideas evolving. To date, I have not been notified of a directory, training or any other outcomes resulting from this regional collaboration. (STW Coordinator) 13-5 (did not complete survey) The reason I did not complete the survey is that my job changed and I really haven’t been involved……………..
  • 162. REGION Rating # % 1-ratings by sector h 12 63.2% USE # partners not known s 3 15.8% 19 sectors identified m 4 21.1% total 19 2-individual partner ratings h 8 53.3% 15 partners s 4 26.7% m 3 20.0% total 15 3-individual agency ratings h 9 81.8% 22 agencies identified, s 2 18.2% 11 agencies rated m total 11 4-individual partner ratings h 10 50.0% 20 partners s 3 15.0% m 7 35.0% total 20 *5-individual partner ratings h 27 57.4% 30 partners s 15 31.9% m 5 10.6% total 47 6-ratings by sector h 10 90.9% # partners not known s 11 sectors identified m 1 9.1% total 11 7-individual partner ratings h 12 30.8% 38 partners s 9 23.1% m 18 46.2% total 39 8-ratings by sector h 5 45.5% # partners not known s 3 27.3% 11 sectors identified m 3 27.3% total 11 *9-individual partner ratings h 14 100.0%
  • 163. 12 partners s m total 14 10-individual partner ratings h 20 48.8% 41 partners s 14 34.1% m 7 17.1% total 41 *11-individual partner ratings h 19 65.5% 26 partners s 4 13.8% m 6 20.7% total 29 *12-individual partner ratings h 18 90.0% 13 partners s 2 10.0% m total 20 ALL REGIONS h 164 59.2% 217 partners from 9 regions s 59 21.3% 3 regions identified between 11 and 19 sectors m 54 19.5% total 277