You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview Initiated by the Mississippi Arts Commission (MAC) in 1998, the Core Arts Program (CAP) is an arts-based program for adjudicated youth. CAP consists of Mississippi arts and youth services organizations whose goal is to use arts as a core strategy to build skills in youth offenders. MAC provides funding to these organizations to support partnerships between juvenile justice programs, arts organizations, and artists. CAP's goals are to: (1) use arts programming in juvenile justice settings that build artistic, communication, and social problem-solving skills in youth offenders, (2) build the capacity of arts organizations and artists to use the arts in service to their communities, (3) build the capacity of juvenile justice entities to reach their goals more effectively through the strategic use of the arts, (4) create a consortium of arts and juvenile justice programs that will learn from and support these efforts, and (5) provide models for the development of similar programs in Mississippi and around the country.
Start Date fall 1998
Scope state
Type after school, comprehensive services, mentoring
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting public school, private school, community-based organization, religious institution, recreation center, justice center (detention center), arts organization, other
Participants middle school, high school, dropout (specifically youth offenders)
Number of Sites/Grantees The program originated in three sites. Two additional sites were added in early 2000 and two more in 2001.
Number Served approximately 679 in 1998–1999, approximately 690 in 1999–2000, approximately 1,766 in 2000–2001, 3,016 in 2001–2002, approximately 2,581 in 2002–2003
Components In 1998, an Arts Commission panel made up of representatives of the arts selected three program sponsors and youth services communities. Each site received MAC funding and technical assistance for three years, after which it was hoped that the sites would become self-sustaining.

The following are the sponsors/sites and the programs they hosted:

Region 8 Mental Health Commission – A program providing arts programming for 11–17-year-old youth who had come before the youth court of Rankin County.

Grace Outreach Center (Clarke-Jasper Counties) – A faith-based institution that engaged a team of artists to work with students from a local alternative school.

Family Network Partnerships (Hattiesburg) – A University of Mississippi-supported program offering arts classes to youth at the Family Network Partnership facility, the Forrest County Detention Center, and at a local adolescent offender program.

In addition, two new sponsor sites were added to the CAP initiative in early 2000 to provide continuity within the initiative as the first three sites transitioned from direct support. These sites were:

Washington County Board of Supervisors – A program providing multi-disciplinary arts curriculum to participants at the county's detention center and adolescent offender program.

Jackson County Children's Services Coalition – An organization providing arts programming at the youth detention center in Pascagoula and two nearby alternative schools.

All programs were premised on the idea of carefully selecting artists, providing sustained arts instruction for adjudicated youth in several artistic disciplines, and encouraging youth to make a connection between being in control of an artistic product and taking control over their own lives.
Funding Level Current levels of funding are $10,000–15,000 per site for year one; year two and year three funding levels were approximately $20,000 per site per year.
Funding Sources Mississippi Arts Commission


Evaluation

Overview In the fall of 1998, MAC asked the Center for the Study of Art & Community (CSA&C) to assist in the development of the program and its assessment. These evaluations were designed to take stock of programs that were new and unique for the agencies and communities involved and answer a series of elemental questions about the goals, expectations, and outcomes of the Core Arts Program.
Evaluator(s) William Cleveland, Center for the Study of Art and Community
Evaluations Profiled An Evaluation of the Core Arts Program: 1998–2001

An Evaluation of the Jackson County Children's Services Coalition Core Arts Program: 2001–2002
Evaluations Planned Another evaluation is planned for 2005.
Report Availability Cleveland, W. (2001). An evaluation of the Core Arts Program: 1998–2001. Minneapolis, MN: Center for the Study of Art and the Community.

Cleveland, W. (2002). An evaluation of the Jackson County Children's Services Coalition Core Arts Program: 2001–2002. Minneapolis, MN: Center for the Study of Art and the Community.


Contacts

Evaluation William Cleveland
Director
Center for the Study of Art and Community
2743 Irving Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Tel: 612-870-4897
Fax: 612-870-4895
Email: bill@artandcommunity.com
Program Beth Batton
Arts-Based Community Development Director
Mississippi Arts Commission
239 North Lamar Street, Ste 207
Jackson, MS 39201
Tel: 601-359-6546
Fax: 601-359-6008
Email: bbatton@arts.state.ms.us
Profile Updated April 1, 2003

Evaluation 1: An Evaluation of the Core Arts Program: 1998–2001


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To consider a number of questions related to the state's investment in arts programming for adjudicated youth: (1) What goals do the various partners and participants have for CAP? (2) To what degree have these goals been achieved? (3) What CAP characteristics (i.e., curriculum, staffing, and program design) advanced or inhibited achievement of these goals? (4) How can CAP partners improve their efforts to evaluate the accomplishment of these goals? and (5) How can the partners sustain CAP beyond the initial research development phase supported by the MAC?
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: Data were collected on program participants, artists, and program sponsor and site staff. In total, 147 participants and 50 staff members provided data over the course of the three-year study.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: Evaluators obtained data from a review of reports, publications, and documentary information from MAC, the program sites, and other studies.

Interviews/Focus Groups: One-on-one interviews were conducted with staff members and CAP participants. The evaluators consulted program participants, administrators, teachers, counselors, and correctional officers working in the various CAP sites. Interviews focused on the programs' goals, successes, and areas in need of improvement.

Interviews with site staff and the MAC revealed six indicators of success that stakeholders felt would measure the program's success, which were used in developing the survey instrument. These were: (1) youth development, (2) youth arts program development, (3) organizational development, (4) cultural policy development, (5) community development, and (6) artist development.

Secondary Source/Data Review: At one adolescent offender program, the Washington County Board of Supervisors, the evaluators analyzed Washington County Youth Court counselors' ratings of 10 students' behavioral progress. Counselors rated students' daily progress in nine specific areas of behavior: interpersonal skills, living skills, interaction with authority figures, attitude, peer interaction, participation, cooperation, probation compliance, and curfew compliance. Daily progress was measured on a one to five rating scale with one denoting significant regression and five denoting significant progress.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were administered to participants, artists, and program sponsor and program site staff members. These surveys provided opportunities for both quantitative and qualitative feedback from respondents, in terms of satisfaction with the program, impressions of the program's effectiveness, and impressions of the program's functioning.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected from spring of 1999 through June 2001.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation Site staff noted the need to increase the frequency and duration of workshops and classes.

Site staff felt that there should be more of an emphasis in the program activities on “making and doing” and less on talking and listening.

According to site staff, youth could be better served by the program if they were grouped more by age, rather than mixed with youth of widely varying ages.

Site staff thought the program could benefit from expanding the variety of art forms available to youth.

At the alternative school site, staff believed that the art program should be integrated into the school day.
Program Context/Infrastructure Site staff overwhelmingly rated the program as positive.

According to site staff, improvements were needed in the program in coordinating around safety issues.

Both artists and site staff rated the program's effectiveness in the areas of planning, communication, and cooperation as very high.

Some artists and staff members expressed concerns about program continuity and depth, especially in sites featuring programming of two weeks or less.
Recruitment/Participation Site staff indicated that including all students in the program and increasing the number of students served could improve the program. At the same time, staff thought that the program could benefit by keeping the class numbers down.
Satisfaction Students rated their teachers and classes very highly at all four sites. Over 68% gave the class or classes they attended an A rating, while another 23.1% rated their experience with a B grade. Over 84% of participants gave their art teachers an A grade, while another 7% gave the art teachers a B grade.

Participants showed high interest in continuing their involvement in the program. Adjectives most used by participants in describing how participation made them feel were happy, good, great, excited, and proud. The only negatives expressed by students involved their impatience with the time it takes to acquire artistic competency.

All of the responding staff members indicated they would recommend a similar arts program to their colleagues at similar institutions.

Staff members expressed across-the-board interest in continuing association with the program.
Staffing/Training Of the site staff responding to a question on CAP's impact on their work, 93% responded with a very positive or positive rating. Staff cited decreases in participants' idle time and violent behavior, as well as increases in participant self-control, positive incentives, and cooperation as factors contributing to positive impacts on staff's work. These impacts consisted of staff viewing youth more positively, reduced tension between youth and staff, a break in monotony for staff, and opportunities for staff and participants to learn and work together.

Staff rated their clarity on various program roles and goals as very high, with an average rating of 4.47 on a scale from zero (very low) to five (very high).

Most program staff and support staff shared a common understanding of program goals and activities.
Systemic Infrastructure Program sites demonstrated mixed results in their efforts to achieve sustained development. Some fund development efforts bore fruit, but other promising opportunities did not. Specifically, some sites showed evidence of establishing new links to regional and national youth arts programming and advocacy leadership, establishing links with local and regional juvenile court systems and leadership, applying to local, state, and national funding sources, and creating partnerships with local arts agencies.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic When asked to rate the impact of the program on academic performance on a scale from one (no improvement) to five (great improvement), staff provided an average rating of 3.77. The educators and school administrators among these staff gave an average rating of 3.67.
Youth Development Site staff and teaching artists reported significant improvements in student behavior in five areas identified in the study surveys administered over the program's first three years. These areas were: (1) cooperation, (2) self-control, (3) academic performance, (4) incidence of disruptive behavior, and (5) interest in other programs.

Washington County Youth Court program counselors' ratings of participants in nine critical behavior/attitude categories were 5.07% higher during the two months of the program than during the three prior months.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project