kcarec kc flash mobs final report relatorio sobre flash mobs

8/21/2019 KCAREC KC Flash Mobs Final Report Relatorio Sobre Flash Mobs

1/58

April 30, 2012

Kansas City AreaEducation Research Consortium(913) 396-3214www.kcaerc.org

Youth Flash Mobs inKansas City: Causes,

Consequences andRecommendations

J. Brian Houston

Hyunjin SeoEmily J. KennedyLeigh Anne Taylor Knight

Technical Assistance: Joshua Hawthorne,Alexandra Inglish, Sara L. Trask


2/58

2

Youth Flash Mobs in Kansas City:

Causes, Consequences and Recommendations

Research Teamof the Kansas City Area Education Research Consortium (KC-AERC)

J. Brian Houston, Ph.D.Department of Communication, University of Missouri-Columbia

Hyunjin Seo, Ph.D.School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Kansas

Emily J. Kennedy, M.S.

KC-AERC Project Coordinator, University of Kansas

Leigh Anne Taylor Knight, Ed.D.KC-AERC Executive Director

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible by grants from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and theGreater Kansas City Community Foundation. We are thankful to Munro Richardson, SallyFowler, Denise St. Omer and Jean-Paul Chaurand for their assistance with this work, and wevalue the context-perspective brought to the endeavor.

We appreciate the youth, schools, and youth-serving agencies in Kansas City who participated inand hosted the focus groups and facilitated survey data collection. We thank the followingKansas City community leaders who enabled direct access to important entities for this effort:McClain Bryant, Mark Bowland, Thalia Cherry, Deborah Mann, Manomay Malathip, andAngela Torres.

We are grateful to our focus group moderators, Meaghan Brougher, Trey Protho, ChelseaSimms, and Cherelle Washington, who are College Advisers from the Missouri CollegeAdvising Corps (MCAC). We also appreciate Dr. Beth Tankersley-Bankhead, MCAC ExecutiveDirector, who helped coordinate focus group moderator recruitment and training. JoshuaHawthorne and Sara L. Trask, graduate students in the Department of Communication at the

University of Missouri, transcribed most of the focus group recordings for this project.Alexandra Inglish, a graduate student in the William Allen White School of Journalism and MassCommunications at the University of Kansas, transcribed some focus group recordings andassisted with survey data collection. We appreciate Dr. Astrid Villamils assistance translatingthe survey materials to Spanish.


3/58

3

Kansas City Area Education Research Consortium (KC-AERC)

In April of 2009, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation awarded one million dollars to socialscience, economics and education researchers at the University of Kansas, University ofMissouri, Kansas State University and University of Missouri-Kansas City to establish theKansas City Area Education Research Consortium (KC-AERC). KC-AERC conducts rigorousresearch using student achievement and teacher quality data to inform elementary and secondaryeducation practice and policy, and to enhance postsecondary matriculation in the KC metro area.Thirty-two regional school districts, various private and charter schools, foundations, communitycolleges, economic development organizations, and the state Departments of Education inKansas and Missouri are collaborating with KC-AERC in this effort. KC-AERC aspires tobecome a national laboratory for educational research as it studies education in a region thatspans two states, includes rural, urban and suburban environments, and serves a diverse studentpopulation. Our shared goal is to provide allregional educational stakeholders, including schooldistricts, community organizations, and private sector partners, with powerful tools for building a

culture of data-driven educational policy research, evaluation, and implementation.

The findings and conclusions in this report do not necessarily represent the official positions orpolicies of the funders or the Kansas City Area Education Research Consortium.

For more information about KC-AERC and copies of reports, see our Web site:

www.kcaerc.org.


4/58

4

Overview

The Youth Flash Mobs in Kansas City: Causes, Consequences and Recommendations report wasdeveloped to provide youth insight into recent violent youth flash mobs in Kansas City. It is thehope of the youth study participants, the study research team, and the many project supporters

that the youth perspective presented in this report is considered as Kansas City developssolutions for social disorder, community violence, and violent youth flash mobs.

Why this study?

Kansas City residents and leaders are concerned about episodes of youth group violence at theCountry Club Plaza and other locations. Many of these episodes have been labeled flash mobsby the community. The most serious of these flash mobs occurred in August 2011, when largegroups of youth assembled at the Plaza and three youth were shot. In response to these events,Kansas City implemented a new summertime curfew.

Since the flash mobs in Kansas City have involved youth, the current study was conducted to

understand youths perspectives on these events. To gain youth insight we conducted focusgroups and a survey with Kansas City youth.

Important Findings Unique to this Report

While other projects have examined social disorder and violence in Kansas City, this study isunique because it focuses on youths perspectives. As a result, this project has identified newfindings that should be central to discussions intended to address the related issues.

Youth are looking for ways to express themselves by connecting with others: Youth

interventions should be designed to meet this need. Focus group participants saidyoung people were involved in flash mobs to express themselves, get attention, be seen,

be remembered, Get their name up, and make a statement. In addition, surveyparticipants cited expressing themselves as the most important reason youth participate ina flash mob. Kansas City youth with a higher level of social self-efficacy (a sense ofcompetence in forging new relationships) showed stronger intention to participate in aflash mob in the future. Therefore those working with youth should consider initiativesdesigned to provide youth opportunities for expressing themselves through interactionwith their peers.

YouTube, Facebook and texting are the most popular social networking venues for

youth: Social media strategies should be developed to effectively communicate with

and engage Kansas City youth. Our study indicates that online sites such as YouTube

and Facebook are important sources of information about events in general and aboutflash mobs in Kansas City, and that texting was the most widely used communicationmethod for youth to arrange meet-ups with their friends. As such, it is suggested thoseworking with youth identify and utilize relevant social networking sites to provideengaging and timely interactive content.

When implementing youth curfews, provide alternative activities for youth:

Activities should be safe, accessible and entertaining. Youth focus group participants


5/58

5

main objection to the new summertime curfew in Kansas City was that the curfew wasimplemented, but there was still nothing for youth to do. Across focus groups, the mostfrequent cause of problems associated with flash mobs or other acts of group violencereported by youth was youth boredom. Additionally, in our survey over one-quarter ofyouth who were familiar with flash mobs cited boredom as a reason to participate in a

flash mob. Therefore, if a curfew is implemented it should be done so in conjunction withthe development of more activities for youth or the establishment of curfew-free locationswhere youth are provided safe activities with an accompanying police presence toprovide safety. In this respect, our study validates the Kansas City Commission onViolent Crimes final report (2006) recommendation of developing a Youth District thatwould provide safe entertainment opportunities for youth. The establishment of such adistrict might help address the boredom cited by youth in our focus groups and survey.Youth participants in our study wanted to see new entertainment facilities like a venue forunderground rappers and talent shows and sports facilities like College BasketballExperience. A reduction in youth boredom may in turn reduce youth violence.

Concerns about personal safety were woven throughout the conversations in our youth focus

groups. Therefore, attempts to isolate events like the Plaza flash mobs from larger communitychallenges in Kansas City are not likely to succeed. Efforts to reduce violence involving flashmobs should be connected to efforts to reduce all community violence.


6/58

6

Table of Contents

Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 6

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 7

Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11

Flash Mobs ................................................................................................................................ 11

Section 2: Youth Focus Groups .................................................................................................... 13

Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 13

Flash Mobs Definitions .......................................................................................................... 14

Flash Mobs and Social Media ................................................................................................... 15

Flash Mobs Motivations for Youth Participation .................................................................. 15

Flash Mobs Causes and Consequences .................................................................................. 17

Focus Group Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 20

Section 3: Youth Survey ............................................................................................................... 23

Demographic Characteristics of Participants ............................................................................ 23

Social Media Use and Information Sources.............................................................................. 24

Perceptions of Flash Mobs ........................................................................................................ 27

Perspectives on Safety in Kansas City ...................................................................................... 30

Survey Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 32

Section 4: Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 35

References ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: Focus Group Questions ........................................................................................... 42

Appendix B: Survey Questions ..................................................................................................... 44

Appendix C: Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 53


7/58

7

Executive Summary

Kansas City has recently experienced episodes of youth group violence at the Country ClubPlaza (the Plaza) and other locations. Many of these episodes have been labeled flash mobs bythe community. The most serious of these flash mobs occurred in August 2011, when large

groups of youth assembled at the Plaza and three youth were shot. In response to these events,Kansas City implemented a new summertime curfew.

While flash mobs are a recent phenomenon, they are not normally understood to be associatedwith violence. Most commonly they involve a large group of people who gather in somepredetermined location, perform some brief action, and then quickly disperse (McFedries, 2003,p. 56). The violent youth flash mobs in Kansas City do not seem to fit with this definition, soresearch is needed to better understand these occurrences.

Since the flash mobs in Kansas City have involved youth, the current study was conducted tounderstand youths perspectives of flash mobs. To develop this insight we conducted focus

groups and a survey with Kansas City youth.

The Current Study

Focus groups. We conducted 10 focus groups with 50 total youth participants. Participants agesranged from 13 to 24. Participants were recruited through community and school youth programsin Kansas City. Focus groups were conducted in December 2011 and January 2012,approximately 4-5 months following the Plaza shooting. Focus groups were audio recorded andthe recordings were transcribed for analysis.

Analysis of the youth focus group sessions found that Kansas City youth:

Have varying familiarity with the term flash mob and define flash mobs in differentways

Perceive youth boredom to be the most frequent cause of problems associated with flashmobs

Connect ongoing social disorder with the violence associated with flash mobs

Generally support, under certain conditions, the presence of police and implementation ofa curfew to curtail problems with flash mobs

Indicate that while social and new media are facilitators of flash mobs, flash mobs havetheir roots in youth activities that have been going on for generations (e.g., hanging out ingroups, meeting up, cruising)

Survey. In addition to the youth focus groups, a survey of 280 Kansas City youth aged 13-19was conducted in March 2012 to examine youth use of social media, understandings of flashmobs, and social psychological and demographic information. The purpose of this survey was to


8/58

8

obtain broader information about youths perspectives on flash mobs. Focus group resultsinformed development of the final survey.

Analysis of the survey data suggests:

Like U.S. youth in general, Kansas City youth spend a significant amount of time online,particularly on social media sites such as YouTube and Facebook.

Social media is an important channel for Kansas City youth to learn about upcomingflash mobs, arrange meet-ups with their friends, and get information about things to do inKansas City.

Despite recent outbreaks of violence during youth mass gatherings often labeled as flashmobs in the community, Kansas City youth who are familiar with flash mobs perceivethem largely as fun, entertaining, and benign events.

More than a third of the survey participants indicated their willingness to participate in aflash mob in the future.

Kansas City youth with a higher level of social self-efficacy (a sense of competence inforging new relationships) show stronger intention to participate in a flash mob in thefuture.

Flash mobs are an important way for digital nativesthe generation born after thegeneral introduction of digital technologies that has grown up immersed in thesetechnologiesto express themselves, meet new friends, and deal with boredom.

RecommendationsOur study resulted in the following key recommendations intended for public officials, schoolsand youth-serving organizations, the police, and media interested in understanding andpreventing problems associated with youth flash mobs.

When discussing flash mobs with youth, be clear about what flash mob means.

Many youth in our focus groups did not know what flash mobs meant and in our surveywe found that over one-third of youth were not familiar with the term flash mob.Moreover, focus group participants provided a variety of definitions for flash mobs.Therefore, for those wishing to engage Kansas City youth in a conversation aboutpreventing flash mobs or enforcing activities such as a curfew related to flash mobs, such

conversations would benefit from clarity about what type of activities are of concern.

Provide youth living in central Kansas City with safe, accessible activities and

entertainment options. Across focus groups, the most frequent cause of problemsassociated with flash mobs or other acts of group violence was youth boredom.Additionally, in our survey over one-quarter of youth who were familiar with flash mobscited boredom as a reason to participate in a flash mob. Therefore efforts to reduce youthboredom may prevent some episodes of youth violence.


9/58

9

Engage in efforts to deal with ongoing community and family disorder and violence.

Youth focus group participants cited community violence, crime, and disrepair; schoolproblems; broken families; and bad parenting as contributors to episodes of groupviolence like the shootings that occurred on the Plaza. Moreover, many youth indicated

violence, gangs, and crime were common occurrences in their neighborhoods. Concernsabout personal safety were woven throughout the conversations in our youth focusgroups. Therefore, attempts to isolate events like the Plaza flash mobs from largercommunity challenges in Kansas City are not likely to succeed. Efforts to reduce violenceinvolving flash mobs should be connected to efforts to reduce all community violence.

When implementing youth curfews, provide alternative activities for youth. Youthfocus group participants main objection to the new summertime curfew in Kansas Citywas that the curfew was implemented, but there was still nothing for youth to do, and thatthe curfew was only enforced in certain areas (e.g., the Plaza). Therefore, if a curfew isimplemented it should be done so in conjunction with the development of more activities

for youth or the establishment of curfew-free locations where youth are provided safeactivities with an accompanying police presence to provide safety.

Implement (offline and online) community policing approaches. Police areencouraged to engage youth, both in their offline and online networks. Interaction withyouth may allow police to anticipate and be present at large youth gatherings and ensurethe safety of youth present in such gatherings. Additionally, police are encouraged toemploy community policing strategies that concurrently develop trust among citizenswhile also ensuring the citizen safety.

Develop social media strategies to communicate with and engage Kansas City youth.

Those working with youth are encouraged to identify and utilize social networking toolsto communicate effectively with Kansas City youth. Our study indicates that online sitessuch as YouTube and Facebook are important sources of information about events ingeneral and about flash mobs in Kansas City. As such, those interested in communicatingwith youth should be present in these online locations.

Encourage youth community engagement by facilitating good flash mobs. Despitethe episodes of violence at the Plaza that were sometimes labeled as flash mobs by thecommunity, youth knowledgeable about flash mobs often view them as fun andentertaining gatherings that provide an outlet for self-expression. Therefore, instead ofinstituting measures to stop all flash mobs, those working with youth should consider

ways to facilitate good flash mobs. Such efforts can have positive impact on youthcommunity engagement.


10/58

10

Limitations of Current Study

As with all research projects, this study has several limitations. First, neither the focus group northe survey samples for this research project were random samples of Kansas City youth.Therefore, we cannot be sure that the results described here are generalizable to all youth inKansas City. In spite of our efforts to engage youth from all ethnicities, our focus group

participants were mostly African American youth, with few Caucasian and no Hispanicparticipants; and, the majority of youth in our survey sample were African Americans (53.3%),followed by Hispanics (24.2%) and Caucasians (15.4%).

The violence associated with flash mobs in Kansas City was one of the main issues that guidedthis project; however, we were unable to ask youth about violence directly in either the focusgroups or the survey because of restrictions from the University of Kansas Human SubjectsCommittee, which served as the Institutional Review Board for this project. Parental writtenconsent was also required for youth participation in our focus groups and the survey. Thisrequirement restricted our ability to recruit youth survey participants through youth socialnetworks, thus constraining the size and scope of our final survey sample. Moreover, because we

were interested in the role of social and mobile communication technologies in youth flash mobsand youth violence, we had hoped to utilize these technologies to engage Kansas City youth inthis project, but were limited in our ability to do so. We are hopeful future research projects withKansas City youth are able to address and overcome these current limitations.


11/58

11

Section 1: Introduction

In August 2011, three youth were injured in a shooting at the Country Club Plaza (the Plaza), anupscale outdoor shopping center in Kansas City, Missouri (Dillon, 2011b). The August 2011shootings followed ongoing problems with the assemblage of large groups of unruly teens at

the Plaza (Dillon, 2011a, para. 2; Vendel & Smith, 2010). The occurrence of these large groupsof teens at the Plaza has been referred to locally as flash mobs(Flash-mob event, 2011;Osterheldt, 2011, para. 14). The events in Kansas City mirrored incidents with large groups ofyouth and violent behavior in other American cities (Chung, 2010; Goldstein, 2003; Solecki &Goldschmidt, 2011; Zeitz et al, 2009). There has also been evidence of this phenomenon abroad(Joung, 2005; Lee, 2011; Shmuelli, 2003). In response to the incidents at the Plaza, a newsummertime youth curfew was instituted in five areasthe Plaza, the Downtown/CrossroadsDistrict, the 18thand Vine District, Westport, and Zona Rosain Kansas City (Hendricks, 2011).

The study described in this report was undertaken to gain youth perspectives on flash mobs inKansas City. We focus on youth because they are potential participants in such events and arealso potentially peers of flash mob participants. In order to better understand what youth think

about flash mobs, we conducted focus groups and a survey with youth in the Kansas City area.

The purpose of this study is to understand:

If Kansas City youth are familiar with the term flash mob and, if so, how they definethe term.

Whether Kansas City youth know of or have been involved in a flash mob.

How flash mobs are organized.

Whether flash mobs are popular among Kansas City youth.

Why Kansas City youth participate in flash mobs.

What problems occur at flash mobs and what can be done to prevent those problems.

How social psychological variables are related to youth experiences with flash mobs.

Flash Mobs

A flash mob has been defined as a large group of people who gather in some predeterminedlocation, perform some brief action, and then quickly disperse (McFedries, 2003, p. 56). Theorganizer of the first flash mobs intended the events to be coordinated group actions that wereinexplicable and lacked an apparent agenda (Shmuelli, 2003, para. 10).

The brief action performed as part of a flash mob has included activities such as participantsfreezing in place, singing a predetermined song, and performing a choreographed dance (CNWGroup, 2012; Goodman, 2011; Gore, 2010; Masterson, 2010). The parameters of a flash mob

(time, location, and performed action) are communicated to participants via new and mobilecommunication technologies such as e-mail, texting, and smart phones (Goldstein, 2003, Wasik,2011).

While the original flash mobs were intended to be good-natured spectacles (Wasik, 2011, para.16), recent events involving large groups of youth in Boston, Massachusetts; Brooklyn, NewYork; Kansas City, Missouri; Orange, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Brooklyn,New York have resulted in violence, vandalism, injuries, and arrests (Urbina, 2010). While youth


12/58

12

flash mobs involving violence have seemingly become more common across the United States,research has not examined how youth think about and understand flash mobs. This project seeksto gain this youth perspective.

The current report is organized as follows. Our approach to conducting youth focus groups andthe results of the focus groups are described in Section 2 of the report. Our survey approach andsurvey results are presented in Section 3.

Section 4 includes key recommendations that emerged from the youth focus group and surveyresults. These recommendations are intended to be used by public officials, schools and youth-serving organizations, the police, and the media throughout the community as Kansas Cityconsiders actions and policies to prevent negative outcomes associated with youth flash mobs.


13/58

13

Section 2: Youth Focus Groups

In order to understand youth perspectives on flash mobs, we conducted focus groups with youththroughout the central Kansas City area. We recruited participants through community andschool youth programs by contacting program administrators, explaining the project, enlisting

administrative support, distributing and obtaining signed youth and parental consent forms, andthen conducting focus groups. All focus group procedures were approved by the Human SubjectsCommittee at the University of Kansas.

We conducted 10 focus groups with 4 to 8 participants in each, resulting in 50 total participants.Focus groups were conducted in three locations in Kansas City, each associated with one of theyouth programs that facilitated recruitment of participants. Each focus group lastedapproximately 1 to 1 hours. Participants ages ranged from 13 to 24, with 20% (n = 10)between 13 and 15 and 80% (n = 40) between 16 and 24. Participants were 44% (n = 22) femaleand 56% (n = 28) male. Participants were mostly (94%, n = 47) African American, while 4% (n= 2) were Caucasian and 2% (n = 1) were Asian.

The same focus group questioning route was used for all groups (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Thefull focus group questioning script can be found in Appendix A. We asked participants if theywere familiar with the term flash mob and, if so, how they defined it; whether they knew of orhad been involved in a flash mob; where flash mobs occurred; whether flash mobs were popular;why people participate in flash mobs; whether any problems ever occurred at flash mobs and, ifso, what could be done to prevent those problems. Due to the Human Subjects Committeesrequirements, none of our focus group questions addressed youth violence or the Plaza shootingsspecifically.

Focus group moderators were recent college graduates who were working in Kansas City areaschools at the time of the study. Moderators were similar in age and race to focus groupparticipants (Krueger & Casey, 2009) and were experienced in interacting and working withyouth. Moderators received focus group training and then observed an initial focus groupconducted by project investigators. Following the initial focus group, the moderators andinvestigators discussed and reviewed the moderating process. Investigators were present at allfocus groups and provided support to moderators as needed. Focus groups were conducted inDecember 2011 and January 2012, approximately 4-5 months following the Plaza shooting.Focus groups were audio recorded and the recordings were transcribed for analysis.

Analysis

Focus group transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative grounded theory approach (Strauss &Corbin, 1998). Inductive coding was used so that coding themes were not identified prior toanalysis. Instead, a constant comparative method was utilized in which all transcripts were firstread by two coders, and then the coders worked together to identify themes and sub-themesappearing in the transcripts. Once themes and sub-themes were identified, individual focus groupstatements were placed into categories. The process of identifying themes and sub-themes andplacing statements in these categories involved both coders working together to discuss,compare, and re-code the data until the final coding resulted in consensus.


14/58

14

Flash Mobs Definitions

In talking to Kansas City youth about flash mobs, several different definitions of flash mobsemerged, indicating that the term does not mean the same thing to all youth.

Kansas City youth described flash mobs as:

Organized, impromptu events

Gangs

Shootings at the Plaza

Large groups of youth hanging out

Each of these definitions is discussed below.

Flash mobs as organized, impromptu events.Several youth focus group participants defined aflash mob as a seemingly spontaneous, yet orchestrated and planned public event. For example,one youth explained that a flash mob was when a group of people come together to do the same

activity at the same time in the same place, it has to be coordinated. Its not something random;its actually planned out thoroughly. Other youth explained that flash mobs were both plannedand unexpected, and that people in flash mobs disappear after the event has occurred.

Focus group participants noted entertainment media examples of flash mobs such as the moviewith Justin Timberlake where they had flash mobs and they were all like singing and dancing(Friends with Benefits) and a new television show about flash mobs (Mobbed). Youth alsodescribed local examples of flash mobs, such as an event at Macys in which people posted onFacebook that they would be at the store at a certain day and time to dance and sing.

Another focus group participant described a flash mob at the participants school in which

students texted other students to plan for a spontaneous group dance to a popular song played ona boom box in the school cafeteria during lunch.

Flash mobs as gangs.The second flash mob definition to emerge involved youth focus groupparticipants who were not sure what flash mobs were, but generally guessed that they wererelated to gangs or groups of violent youth. Confusion regarding the definition of a flash mob isillustrated through example focus group participant responses such as: I know what a mob is;little confused about the flash part and is the flash symbolic or is it literally a flash?

When unsure what flash mobs were, focus group participants mostly surmised they were relatedto gangs or group violence. For example, focus group participants explained that a flash mob was

a big fight, a massive group of people participating in criminal activity, people with guns,people who go around terrorizing stuff and its just a big group of em, people who carryguns, they shoot and rob, and break in peoples houses, and groups against groups thatfightin.

Flash mob at the Plaza.The third definition to emerge from the focus group participants wasdirectly related to the Plaza shootings. Some focus group participants considered the events atthe Plaza to constitute a flash mob. For example, focus group participants explained that a flash


15/58

15

mob was when a certain age group of children go to the Plaza and provoke older people andmake havoc. However, other focus group participants did not perceive the events at the Plaza toconstitute flash mobs. For example, focus group participants explained that there was anincident at the Plaza that was labeled [emphasis added]a flash mob but that event was actuallya new thing.

Some focus group participants considered the labeling of the Plaza shootings as flash mobs to bea case of Kansas City putting a positive spin on what occurred. Other youth focus groupparticipants explained that the Plaza shootings only received attention (and were only called aflash mob) because of where the event occurred. Youth participants explained that theres beenproblems all across the city and like the only time that they responded to it was on the Plaza.

Flash mobs as large groups of youth hanging out. The final theme to emerge regarding thedefinition of a flash mob concerned the desire for youth to want to hang out together. One focusgroup participant explained that:

Flash mobs are something that (used to) kinda just occurred naturally, like after maybe afootball game like maybe you go to IHOP or something after that, then you pass alongword of mouth that way everyone is going to IHOP and eat or something like that. Thenit just so happens there is a big group there that hangs out because then you know therestaurant can accommodate for so many people, so you know, I remember, uh, being inthose instances, to where like man the police was called to break up the, uh, crowdstanding there. We werent necessarily causing trouble, but it was more so we didnt haveanywhere else to go and it just kinda happen to be collecting in a group.

Flash Mobs and Social Media

A recurring theme in the discussion of flash mobs was the use of social and mobile media(Facebook, twitter, texting, etc.) to organize these events. With regard to the events at the Plaza,one focus group participant explained:

Like when a bunch of kids would meet at the Plaza they like made Facebook events, likego to the Plaza, like not go to the Plaza to watch a movie or go to the Plaza to goshopping, but like everybody go to the Plaza.

Youth focus group participants also discussed that social media was a new, more efficient way toget information to peers about what was happening. This spreading of information would havepreviously been accomplished through word of mouth, but social media now made the processeasier and quicker.

Flash Mobs Motivations for Youth Participation

Youth focus group participants were asked why they thought youth participated in flash mobs.Three main motivation themes emerged from this discussion: 1) fitting in and being cool, 2)exercising the right to be in a public place, and 3) having something to do (not being bored).Each motivation is described below.


16/58

16

Fitting in and being cool. Many of the motivations cited by youth focus participants forparticipation in flash mobs were related to social and peer factors. For example, focus groupparticipants said that young people were involved in flash mobs to:

Express themselves

Get attention Be seen

Be remembered

Get their name up

Make a statement

Fit in

Be cool

Get an adrenaline rush

Exercising the right to be in a public place.Focus group participants also indicated thatparticipating in a flash mob at the Plaza was related to exercising the right to be in a specific

public place. As one participant explained:

If my friends like were gonna go to the Plaza and hang out I would be like sure, causesure I dont have a lot of money to spend, but I can spend the money that I do have and Ihave just as much right to be down there as anybody else.

Having something to do (not being bored).The most frequent motivation for participating in aflash mob cited by youth focus group participants was the desire to have something fun to do andnot be bored. Not having anything to do in Kansas City was a frequent complaint among focusgroup participants. One focus group participant indicated that flash mob participants:

Were bored and had nothing else to do. We give em something to do or this is whathappens when you get a group of kids together and theyre bored, they get creative anddestructive, and thats what it is like, it was boredom and destruction.

Another participant explained:

Right now theres just not very many places for kids to go. So, they are all going tocongregate at this one place, so you are bound to be with people that you dont know.And like you dont know what buttons you cant push with them, so like its just, its justnot a good situation. Its just not a good combination.

Focus group participants discussed three main causes for this widespread boredom: a) a lack offun things to do, b) a lack of transportation to get to fun places, and c) the fact that no place wassafe. Each is described below.

Lack of fun things to do.Youth focus group participants discussed that down here theresreally nothing to do, you gotta travel far out to do everything, the mall, Independence, Oak Park,Kansas. Aint nothing down here for us to do so thats why the teens act so crazy. Activities thatyouth indicated were missing from central Kansas City were a movie theatre (the closest movie


17/58

17

theatres were described as requiring adult accompaniment to see a movie in the evening),bowling alley, skating rink, gym or sport centers/activities, arcade, free music studio,entertainment restaurants (e.g., ESPN Zone, Dave and Busters), and community centers withmore room.

One youth focus group participant explained the lack of things to do was the result of the factthat theres no money to spend things on because the community is not making any money.Another participant lamented that the youth who tried to stay out of trouble were the ones whowere bored, noting that if you arent gonna abide by the laws, then theres plenty of stuff foryou to do. Other participants described activities that prevented them from getting into trouble.For example, one participant noted that if we wasnt in (a local community program for youth),wed prolly out there doing something. Wed be in the flash mob too.

Lack of transportation to get to fun places.In addition to the lack of activities for youth incentral Kansas City, youth expressed frustration with not having access to transportation(personal or public) to get to places that were deemed fun but were located outside of the central

portion of the city. As one participant discussed, youth had no transportation to get to placeswhere there is something to do.

No place is safe.Lastly, some youth focus group participants expressed that there was nothing todo because they did not feel safe anywhere in Kansas City. Participants indicated that You cantgo nowhere without worryin if somebody gonna start shootin or get robbed or something andthere aint nowhere you can go without having to worry about somebody getting pissed,somebody shooting, or somebody just trippin for no reason.

Flash Mobs Causes and Consequences

In addition to the motivations for youth participation in flash mobs just described, focus groupparticipants discussed causes and consequences of the flash mobs in Kansas City. The themesthat emerged from this discussion are described below.

Social Disorder.Social disorder in Kansas City was often cited as a cause of the problems withflash mobs. One youth focus group participant said:

Its like you want social order for a population that has had to endure so much socialdisorder for such a long period of time, I just feel like we have this, were going to haveto deal with it and new programs might help, but its also just a nasty reality check ofwhat we built in our own urban environments.

Other participants expressed dismay at general social conditions. Youth participants stated that:

Several things have broken down, so the families were broken down, your communitieshave broken down.

Look at these schools now. They all falling apart. Theyre not accredited. They arentteaching nothing.


18/58

18

Like our community down here, Im gonna speak on our town, like it aint good, we got

a lot of crack heads, a lot of fiends.

Theres violence everywhere.

Several youth focus group participants indicated this social disorder would have to be addressedby the entire community if it were to be improved. As one participant explained:

A lot of people are pointing their fingers at everyone else like all the kids are blaming thefact that theres nothing else to do and adults are saying that were just like a terriblegeneration because were just violent and were just prone like were innately evil people.AndI think that if we all looked at how we could change the situation or improve thesituation then I honestly think thats the only way that its going to improve.

Some focus group participants suggested the community could provide support to help youthcope with the social disorder. One focus group participant suggested providing case workers who

could work with youth at Kansas City community centers, while another participant stated that,I really think we need people that genuinely they willing to sit here and say lets talk aboutthis or come here lets talk about this situation.

Other participants were less optimistic that the community could help youth cope or improvesocial order. As one participant explained, how can a community help? I feel like a lot of thetimes, a lot of these kids who doing it wrong they getting a lot of influence from thecommunity.

Police.Youth focus group participants discussed whether more police would help address theproblems with flash mobs. Several participants noted that while the police were present at places

like the Plaza, they were absent in the areas where participants lived. For example, one youthstated, I called the cops three times and I couldnt get a cop to come to one of those events and Iwas like really? Another participant suggested that:

If we had more police at events, like actual events, that kids were gonna be at. Cuz then,not like an overwhelming presence, but like one or two police there just to give, sendsome like message like, nothing can happen here like. Guys you cant get out of handhere. And then if we had more of those events across the city then like, um, I think thatwould reduce a lot of the violence that happens, just because, its just like that too manykids get put in one spot at the same time and theres not enough control there and likethere might be security or something like that, kids barely have respect for police, like,they are not gonna respect security. So, I think like if we just had more police presence at

uh, youth centered events it would help.

However, not all focus group participants were convinced that additional police presence wouldhelp: Police they hype younger people up you know. So when a younger person see the policethe first thing they wanna do is runso I cant say the police (would help).

Curfew.Youth focus group participants discussed the curfew that was imposed in Kansas Cityas a result of the Plaza shootings. Participants had a variety of opinions about the curfew, arguing


19/58

19

the curfew was 1) unfair, 2) unenforceable, 3) appropriate, and 4) a reaction not prevention. Eachis described below.

Curfew as unfair.Participants who thought the curfew was unfair generally believed so becausethe law provided no alternative activities and punished everyone based on the behavior of a few

bad actors. One participant stated that, You cant just say, you have a curfew, heres a $500.00fine, but you dont have nothing else for them to do. Another participant said:

The curfew was the off the bat first thing, oh if we tell them they cant be out, they cantbe out, but thats it, you dont provide any benefits for them to go anywhere else.Theres still boredom. Theres no more companies that came in. Theres no moneygrowth.

Some focus group participants also believed it was inappropriate to punish all youth because ofwhat occurred. One focus group participant stated that, I think its unfair they, uh, penalizeeverybody.

Curfew as unenforceable.Several focus group participants believed that the curfew would notwork because it would be ignored. One participant explained:

The majority of youth, we probably wont follow that curfew. And, even if we getapproached by the officers or something, excuse me, then that might spark, you know,something, because we have a lot of fiery youth in our community now.

Another focus participant said that:

Even if they have the curfew it is just enforced at certain areas now. That just means thattheres still the kids there. The problem is still there they are just gonna relocate and itsjust gonna make another area even worse than it already is, so like they need to look at abigger picture that what they are looking at right now.

Curfew as appropriate.Other youth focus group participants viewed the curfew as anappropriate response to the events that occurred at the Plaza. As one focus group participantexplained, When I heard it (the curfew) on the news I just sat there and was like, that is whatyou get, because if youre gonna go out and act bad then youre gonna get a consequence.

Curfew as reaction not prevention.Lastly, some focus group participants viewed the curfew as areaction to events rather than an attempt to prevent future problems. As one participantexplained:

I feel like so often in Kansas City they respond to bad events that happen rather thanpreventing them. So, if we like just had a different approach to how we try to take care ofthe problem cause like the curfew, like that was a reaction.


20/58

20

Another focus group participant stated that, its almost like they are like punishing us, like weare parents instead of guiding us through, like helping us and preventing stuff they could preventrather than responding.

Parenting.Many youth focus group participants indicated that the parenting of youth was to

blame for problems associated with flash mobs. One focus group participant said:

If you dont have that parental guidance in your house then theyre gonna go out and actup cause they dont have somebody to put their foot down and say no you cannot do thisand you cannot do that.

Though parenting was often mentioned as a reason that youth were involved in violent activity,there was also disagreement as to whether this was a contributing factor to violence in flashmobs. One focus group participant noted:

Somebody could have the best parents in the world and they still go out and do something

bad just to prove that they can do it. It aint really got to do with nothing at home. I meanthats just another excuse.

Local News Media.The final theme to emerge from the youth focus groups concerned localnews media coverage of the flash mobs. Focus group participants noted that the local newsmedia often focused on flash mobs, crime, and violence associated with African American youth,which, as one participant said, makes us look bad. Another participant stated:

I think that the reason why (the media) focus on African Americans is because we are theones on the Plaza we are the ones who cause the problems. Like you dont see a whiteteenager rolling around with a gun on the Plaza, like that doesnt happen.

Another focus group participant suggested:

If we wanna change the way that people perceive us and the stereotypes that people haveon us then we as like an entire generation of African American youth are gonna have tochange. And were gonna have to behave differently and until then, yeah, people aregonna, the news is gonna focus on us because there isnt anyone else to focus on.

Focus Group Conclusions

Overall, several important findings emerged from the focus group component of this study.Analysis of the youth focus group sessions found that Kansas City youth:

Have varying familiarity with the term flash mob and define flash mobs in differentways,

Perceive youth boredom to be the most frequent cause of problems associated with flashmobs,

Connect ongoing social disorder with the violence associated with flash mobs,


21/58

21

Generally support, under certain conditions, the presence of police and implementation of

a curfew to curtail problems with flash mobs, and

Indicate that while social and new media are facilitators of flash mobs, flash mobs havetheir roots in youth activities that have been going on for generations (e.g., hanging out ingroups, meeting up, cruising).

While the focus group results provide preliminary insight into Kansas City youthsunderstanding of flash mobs, a survey was also conducted to gain additional information aboutKansas City youths perspectives on this phenomenon. The survey portion of this study isdescribed in the following section.


22/58

22


23/58

23

Section 3: Youth Survey

A survey of Kansas City youth aged 13-19 was conducted in March 2012 to examine youth useof social media, understandings of flash mobs, and social psychological and demographicinformation. The complete survey is located in Appendix B, and full survey results are located in

Appendix C. The purpose of this survey was to obtain broader information about youthsperspectives on flash mobs.

An initial survey questionnaire was developed based on the focus group results and literaturereview. The investigators next conducted a pretest of the questionnaire on a sample of 18 youthrecruited through a youth-oriented radio station. The participants in the survey pretest were askedto complete the survey and then to identify questions, answer choices, or statements that wereambiguous or difficult to comprehend. The youth also provided suggestions for changes. Basedon their feedback, several questions or statements were rephrased to enhance clarity and someanswer options were added.

Our online survey was created on Qualtrics.com, one of the leading online survey sites. A paper-and-pencil version of the survey (in both English and Spanish), which included the same set ofquestions and similar layout, was created for youth that might not have access to the onlineversion of the survey. Survey respondents were recruited through schools, youth centers, and ayouth-oriented radio broadcast. Youth under the age of 18 were required to provide parental andyouth informed written consent in order to participate in the survey. Youth aged 18-19 wereallowed to complete the survey without parental informed written consent.

The survey was approved by the Human Subjects Committee at the University of Kansas. Surveyparticipants were notified that the study would be about youths use of the Internet and socialgatherings and that all answers would remain confidential and be analyzed only by theresearchers. They were also informed that their participation in the survey was voluntary andthey could stop participation at any time. Completing the questionnaire took about 10-15 minutesand survey data was collected for 4 weeks in March 2012.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

A total of 280 youth ages 13-19 participated in the survey. The median age was 17. Most of therespondents were high school students (89.7%) with some participation from middle schoolstudents (6.2%) and college students or middle/high school graduates (4.1%). About 68% of thesurvey respondents were female and 32% were male. African Americans were the biggest groupaccounting for 53.3%, followed by Hispanics (24.2%) and Caucasians (15.4%). A little over halfof the respondents (53.9%) described their households socio-economic status as middle class,followed by 30.3% working class, 13.3% upper middle class, and 2.5% upper class. Fulldemographic breakdowns are shown in Figure 1.


24/58

24

Figure1 ParticipantDemographics

While these demographic characteristics are not completely representative of Kansas City youth,

this sample still allows us to identify some trends in Kansas City youths communication

behavior, perspectives on flash mobs, and ideas for improving safe recreational opportunities foryouth.

Social Media Use and Information Sources

Internet usage among youth has steadily increased over the past several years, with as many as

95% of youth estimated to have access to online content and 80% of those youth engaged in

social networking sites by 2011 (Boyd, 2007; Lenhart et al., 2010; Lenhart et al., 2011). Previous

research indicates that the majority of youth have positive interactions online and find a sense ofsocial inclusion by sharing information with peers in the digital sphere (Boyd, 2007; Lenhart et

al., 2011). However, some youth are finding themselves going beyond a positive experience and

become addicted to social networking sites (Pelling & White, 2009). Given such intenseadoption of digital-based interactions among youth, examining this form of communication is

essential to better understand how information is spread within this group. This is particularly

relevant as flash mobs are typically organized via social media or mobile communication.

A key finding of this study is that youths social media use is highly correlated with their sense

of needing to be socially accepted. Social media use was measured by asking how much time

youth spend on different social networking sites including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube onan average weekday and an average weekend day. Participants were also asked to indicate how

much they agree with each of different possible reasons for using social networking sites: (i) to

68%

32%

Sex

Femal e Male

53%24%

16%

3%

3%

1%

Race/Ethnicity

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic

Caucasian

Asian/PacificIslander

Other

NativeAmerican

90%

6% 4%

Education

Highschool

student

Middleschool

Collegestudent/other

54%30%

13%

3%

SocioeconomicStatus

Middleclass

Working

class

Uppermiddleclass

Upperclass


25/58

25

pass time; (ii) to communicate with friends; (iii) to learn things outside school; and (iv) to help

him/herself feel better when he/she is down.

Consistent with previous research (Gangadharbatla, 2008), we found that youth who feel a

stronger need to belong also spend more time online. Need to belong was measured by asking

how much participants feel treated better online than offline and how much they feel onlineinteractions help them feel better when they are down. This finding indicates lonely youth are

more likely to experiment with their identities online, benefitting from the relative anonymity of

the Internet in learning how to interact with people (Valenzuela et al, 2009; Valkenburg & Peter,2008). While social networking sites offer diverse features, people are drawn to these sites

primarily for personal connections, sharing of their activity with a growing number of friends.

Social networking sites potentially satisfy youths need to belong.

Survey participants reported spending a lot of time on social networking sites such as YouTube

and Facebook (Figure 2). YouTube was the most popular social networking site among youth,followed by Facebook and Twitter. Youth rarely used Foursquare or Myspace. Communicating

with friends was the most important reason for youth to use social networking sites, followed byto pass time, to learn things outside school, and to feel better when they are down.

Moreover, survey participants relied heavily on social media and other forms of mobile

communication to arrange meet-ups with friends, get information about flash mobs, and learnabout events in Kansas City. Texting was the most widely used communication method for youth

to arrange meet-ups with their friends (Figure 3). Email was not a major communication method

among Kansas City youth. When it comes to getting information about upcoming flash mobs,Facebook was the most frequently used, followed by speaking in person, text messaging,

speaking by phone, Twitter, and email. Social networking sites were the most important sources

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Notatall

kcarec kc flash mobs final report relatorio sobre flash mobs

Documents