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 2: An Evaluation of the Jackson County Children's Services Coalition Core Arts Program 2001–2002


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To assess the impact of the arts programs initiated by one of the five Core Arts sponsors, the Jackson County Children's Services Coalition (JCCSC). The evaluation focused on three questions: (1) What goals do the various partners and participants have for CAP? (2) To what degree have these goals been achieved? and (3) What CAP characteristics (i.e., curriculum, staffing, and program design) advanced or inhibited achievement of these goals?
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: At JCCSC's three sites, Jackson County Youth Detention Center (JCYDC), Ocean Springs Alternative School (OSAS), and Pascagoula Opportunity Center (POC), the evaluators obtained feedback from 89 program participants and 22 staff members.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: One-on-one interviews were conducted with program participants, administrators, teachers, counselors, and correctional officers. These interviews asked about program goals, program characteristics, and program outcomes.

Secondary Source/Data Review: OSAS' principal collected data on daily student incident rates and attendance over the course of the school year for seven CAP students. POC maintained data both before and after the implementation of CAP on students' attendance and referrals for problem behavior.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were administered to program participants, administrators, teachers, counselors, and correctional officers. These surveys provided opportunities for both quantitative and qualitative feedback from respondents. These surveys asked about program goals, program characteristics, and program outcomes.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected spring 2001 through April 2002.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Program Context/Infrastructure Negative comments from site staff interviews consisted mainly of logistical issues. Staff and artists argued for deepening the program and improving communications among various stakeholders.

CAP artists rated the program's efficacy in communication, cooperation, and planning an average of 4.21 on a zero to five scale, five being the highest. Site staff gave a rating of 4.76 on the same indicators. At one site, OSAS, teaching artists generally gave lower ratings in the areas of site cooperation and communication than at other sites.
Recruitment/Participation When asked to rate the level of participant engagement on a scale of zero (not at all engaged) to five (highly engaged), program staff gave an average response of 4.43.

Interviews with site staff revealed that staff felt the program should increase the number of children served.

Forty percent of participants had never participated in an arts class before.
Satisfaction Seventy-three percent of students rated their arts classes an A, while 18% rated them a B.

Seventy-seven percent of students rated their art teachers an A, while 12% rated them a B.

Teachers, correctional officers, and counseling staff were all enthusiastic in their support of the program. Many indicated their willingness to advocate for the program's continued development and support.
Staffing/Training Artists rated four “clarity” categories with an average 4.29 rating on a zero-to-five scale (five being the highest level of staff clarity about the program's goals, overall mission, and staff roles in the program). Site staff averaged a rating of 4.44 on the same scale.

Open-ended interview questions revealed a high degree of staff agreement about the theme and intent of the program.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic On a scale from zero (“no change”) to five (“greatly changed”) site staff rated participants' change in academic performance an average of 4.32. The corresponding rating from CAP's teaching artists was an average of 3.83.

The OSAS principal's data showed that school absences were markedly lower on the Tuesdays and Thursdays that CAP classes were scheduled (approximately 3 absences on Tuesdays and 5 absences on Thursdays, as compared to approximately 12 on Wednesdays, 25 on Mondays, and 20 on Fridays).

POC data showed a 15% improvement in grade average compared to pre-program performance.
Prevention On a scale from zero (“no change”) to five (“greatly changed”) site staff rated participants' change in violent or disruptive behavior an average of 3.81. The corresponding rating from CAP's teaching artists was an average of 2.83.

POC's problem behavior referral data showed that CAP students showed a 58% reduction in referrals compared to pre-program performance.
Youth Development When asked to assess the overall effect of CAP on participants, 81% of staff reported a “very positive” impact, while the remaining 19% reported a “positive” impact.

On a scale from zero (“no change”) to five (“greatly changed”) site staff rated participants' change in level of cooperation, from beginning of the program to the end, an average of 4.50, change in self control an average of 4.07, and change in interest/participation in other programs an average of 4.32. The corresponding ratings from CAP's teaching artists were 4.0, 4.17, and 3.6, respectively.

POC's attendance data showed that CAP students showed a 71% improvement in program attendance compared to attendance prior to the implementation of the CAP programming.

The 18 site staff interviews revealed that staff felt the program mitigated many of the conditions that had been problematic in their work with youth, such as violent behavior, idle time, student cooperation and self-control, tension and monotony for staff and participants, and opportunities for staff/student interaction.

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