Module 1 - Research Methods

Running head: YOUTH VIOLENCE IN WASHINGTON DC 1

YOUTH VIOLENCE IN WASHINGTON DC 4

Youth Violence in Washington DC

Numerous youths of Washington, DC, are victims of violence or causing bodily harm to others, leading to death. Rather than rejecting youths involved in violence, society should reclaim them by getting into their lives in a good way. From 2012-2014, the rate of arrests for violent crime for youths aged 10-17 was 158 per 100,000 in Washington DC (Sabel, 2013). The arrest rate for young adults aged 18-24 was 342 per 100 000 (Sabel, 2013). The rates indicate that violent crime rates are higher among adolescents and young adults. Like the rest of the United States, more than three-quarters of youth arrests for serious violent crimes are males in Washington.

Gaps in Service for Youths Exposed to Violence in Washington

Overall, higher levels of youth violence in Washington DC have been linked to low education and low parental income. Less violence is associated with school achievement and the success of the youth (Sabel, 2013). Based on the 2014 Washington State Healthy Youth Survey, black, American Indian, and Alaska Native youths aged 10-17 show high violent crime rate arrests than white youths (Sabel, 2013). Students from these ethnicities were reported fighting and carrying weapons at school at similar rates. The differences between these minority groups and whites were associated with family factors related to race, such as a history of parental arrest and low income (Sabel, 2013). These youths live in high crime areas that pose them at a higher risk for behavioral problems. Some studies indicate that maternal distress and socioeconomic status influence how community violence affects the child's behavior.

Regardless of the significant efforts of various governmental and voluntary programs in Washington DC that high-risk youth, they are not meeting the challenge of availing effective intervention to respond to and ameliorate the concerns related to high-risk youth and their more comprehensive social settings. A primary key reason they are missing the mark is the tendency of states to continue funding unqualified and fragmented programs with narrow interventions targeted at fixing specific behaviors or problems. These programs fail to integrate local and regional systematic change that promotes public health-oriented, interagency, and comprehensive initiatives targeting underprovided environments and restructuring programs and services to empower individuals, families, and communities (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). Thus, funding agencies and state policymakers must take action to utilize the scarce resources to achieve better youth outcomes in Washington by increasing appropriations to remedy the cuts that school-and community-based services endure. In addition, they should support advocacy by health, community, and school partnerships to create a comprehensive vision of early intervention and specific interventions to prevent violent and risk-taking behaviors among youths.

Youth at Risk Programs in Washington, DC, Services Offered, and Ages served

Various local government programs in Washington State focus on helping youths at risk of being exposed to violence. They include the Clark County youth Program, Bellevue Youth Link Program, and King County Safe Place Program, among several others.

Clark County Youth Program consists of services that seek to prevent substance abuse, violence, and other social skills, provide opportunities for youth voice, and build developmental assets and protective factors. The program seeks to address the needs of youths and their families in Clark County with dedicated staff and community members. This program helps teens struggling with emotional and behavioral challenges. Mental health challenges can include trauma, anxiety, depression, substance use, and defiance. The program accommodates youths of ages 14-18 who need therapeutic assistance in coping with personal struggles. It is the best programs for teens looking for a nurturing setting that will allow them to embrace positive change while maintaining progress in school and bettering interpersonal relationships. The transformation in teens enrolled in this program is inspiring, engaging, and lasting with noteworthy progress.

Bellevue Youth Link is a youth-at-risk program that gives services to youths aged 11-18 years, offering them a way to create and lead meaningful community projects. The program has engaged several youths in the community and offered them opportunities to create a difference in their lives. The Youth Link Board seeks to promote diversity, equity, and unity for high school youths in Bellevue, representing the youth's voice to lead in the community. It acts as a catalyst for responding to the concerns and requests by engaging the whole community. It envisions making Bellevue a city where all youths feel involved, respected, valued, and given attention. Above all, it aims to make it a city where all youths feel safe, are protected, and make it enjoyable. Ultimately, the impact of Bellevue Youth Link is to enhance youth quality of life as well as the quality of life for other members of the community.

The King County Safe Program is a collaborative effort between YouthCare in Seattle and youth allies in East and North King County. Jointly, the program supports youths in crises and, in the process, create a safety net for youths. A safe place is an outreach program devised to give immediate safety and help for youths aged 11-17 in crisis. Safe place sites include local organizations and businesses to connect teens and youth in crisis to community emergency shelter or resources. School and church can also become safe places. These places work collaboratively with Youths Emergency Teen Shelter Program allies for boys and girls aged 11-17, Street outreach program, and Youth Haven for at-risk youths aged 15-22. Among several others in Washington DC, these programs have made a difference in the lives of youths through the services they offer. They collectively aim to engage youths in activities that encourage positive behavior, ultimately mitigating their exposure to violence throughout Washington.

Ideal Program to Serve Youths Exposed to Violence

Youths need support and growth opportunities that include positive relationships with caring parents or caregivers, skill-building opportunities, and challenging experiences. Therefore, programs that serve youths exposed to violence should be developmentally appropriate devised to prepare teens and youths for productive adulthood by offering supports and opportunities that help them gain the competencies of knowledge required to face the increasing challenges they will meet as they grow (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). Hence, an ideal program to serve youths exposed to violence should foster positive developmental settings.

The components of positive developmental settings include physical and psychological safety, support for efficacy and mattering, appropriate structure, supportive relationships, opportunities for belonging, opportunities for skill-building, positive social norms, and the incorporation of school, family, and community efforts. In addition, the goals of such a program should seek to promote positive development by striving to prevent problem behaviors. To achieve this, the program's design should foster an atmosphere that supports positive relationships with peers and adults, empowers youth, offers opportunities for recognition, and communicates expectations for positive behavior (Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2010). In addition, the program activities should allow youths to participate in building skills, broadening their horizons, and engaging in authentic and challenging activities (Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2010). All these features are fundamental for the youth-at-risk program for allowing youths to develop positive behaviors.

The perfect program to serve youth exposed to violence in the Washington DC area should meet this criterion. High-risk youth living in Washington are susceptible to numerous and intersecting problems. As aforementioned, these problems include violent and risk-taking behaviors such as fighting, carrying weapons, substance abuse, emotional and behavioral disorders, and poor connection to performance at school (Frankford, 2007). In addition, these youths are more likely to live in vulnerable families and in insufficiently supportive communities, which leads to high conflict rates exposing them to high-risk activities.

The King County Safe Place Program, for instance, collaborates with community, non-profits, and business organizations to help the youths learn about the program through school and community presentations. They also aid in the distribution of Safe Place information cards, public service announcements, and cards. Within this program, youth or teen can enter a library, business, or community building displaying the Safe Place symbol and seek help. Then, a site employee makes a call to the Safe Place collaboration and makes the youth comfortable until the staff member arrives. The staff keeps in touch with the youth's parent or guardian to ensure his or her safety. If the youth needs residential assistance, he or she is transported to the nearby emergency youth shelter. While at the youth agency, the youth meets the staff members who conduct assessments and determine subsequent steps. The agency's staff members contact the youth's family, help them receive help, and link them to professional referrals. This approach helps the program reach out to several youths across King County and its neighborhood.

In conclusion, the number of youths exposed to violence is very high across Washington. Youths from low-income families are at high risk of violence compared to those of high-income families. The black, Indian American and Alaska natives are at the most significant risk compared to whites. Numerous programs offer support services to help prevent youths from engaging in violence. These programs have made significant efforts in collaboration with governmental and voluntary organizations in Washington DC to help high-risk youth. However, they are not meeting the challenge of availing effective intervention to respond to and ameliorate the concerns related to high-risk youth and their more comprehensive social settings. The state policymakers and funding agencies should reconsider funding qualified and non-fragment programs with broader interventions that address comprehensive behaviors and problems among youths.

References

Frankford, E. R. (2007). Changing Service Systems for High-Risk Youth Using State-Level Strategies. American Journal of Public Health, 97 (4), 594-599. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2006.096347

Roth, L. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2016). Evaluating Youth Development Programs: Progress and Promise. Applied Developmental Science, 20 (3), 188-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1113879

Sabel, J. (2013). The health of Washington State: Youth Violence. Washington State Department of Health. https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1500/IV-YV2013.pdf

Yohalem, N. & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 350-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9311-3