Investing in Our YouthThe prevalence of youth employment program in

disadvantaged communitiesSaidah Leatutufu

PA 70612/12/2013

ABSTRACTUrban cities around the United States tend to experience high rates of juvenile delinquency. The question is how this growing issue can be mitigated. This study examines the presence of 11 youth employment programs (YEPs) in relation to the amount of juvenile delinquency in particular areas in San Francisco. Data from the San Francisco Police Department was collected on juvenile crime and a chi-square test was performed to determine if YEPs impact delinquency. Results show that delinquency is less likely to occur in areas where a YEP is present.

QUESTION/HYPOTHESISDo the presence of youth employment programs reduce the likelihood of youth being involved in criminal activity (consequence by police)? H0: YEPs do not affect juvenile delinquency.H1: Juvenile delinquency is less likely to occur

if YEP is present.

METHOD Data for this study are from San Francisco Data, the San Francisco Police

Department (SFPD) Crime Incidents reported from August 2013 to October 2013.

N=227 three variables: juvenile admonished, juvenile cited, and juvenile booked. An admonished juvenile but was dismissed with a warning. A juvenile that was

cited is one that received a ticket resulting in a fine or court summons. A juvenile booked is a youth that was engaged in criminal activity that lead to their arrest.

admonished=1, cited=2 and booked=3. Utilizing the coordinates and address intersections the zip code of where the

incidents took place was determined. If a YEP is located in a particular zip code, then it is accessible to the youth that live in are go to school in that zip code.

In order to determine if a YEP is located in certain zip codes, the zip codes of the 11 YEP were documented. 11 YEPs exist in 8 of the 27 zip codes throughout San Francisco. Some larger zip codes, such as 94110 contain 2 YEPs. The presence of a YEP (independent variable) is coded: No YEP=0, Yes YEP=1.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

Types of Consequences

N=227Valid 227

Missing 0

Mean 2.44

Median 3.00

Mode 3

Std. Deviation .665

Variance .443

**admonished=1; cited=2; booked=3**

a. mean-average youth are cited

b. mode-in three month span, most youth were arrested

MEASURESThree consequences were measured and compared with the presence of a YEP in a particular zip code. The type of consequence (TypeCons) reveals that a juvenile was involved in criminal activity and engagement in that activity is dependent on if a YEP is located in that zip code (YEPpres).

The table shows that the mean type of consequence in the sample is 2.44.

Table 1: Types of Consequence in Relation to YEP Presence (crosstab)

YEPpresence Total(N=227)No Youth

Employment Program

Yes Youth Employment

Program

Type of Consequence

Juvenile Admonished

Count 10 12 22

% within TypeCons 45.5% 54.5% 100.0%

% within YEPpresence

8.2% 11.4% 9.7%

% of Total 4.4% 5.3% 9.7%

Juvenile Cited

Count 63 19 82

% within TypeCons 76.8% 23.2% 100.0%

% within YEPpresence

51.6% 18.1% 36.1%

% of Total 27.8% 8.4% 36.1%

Juvenile Booked

Count 49 74 123

% within TypeCons 39.8% 60.2% 100.0%

% within YEPpresence

40.2% 70.5% 54.2%

% of Total 21.6% 32.6% 54.2%

Total

Count 122 105 227

% within TypeCons 53.7% 46.3% 100.0%

% within YEPpresence

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 53.7% 46.3% 100.0%

Chi-SquareUtilizing SPSS software, a chi-square test was conducted. The chi-square test is used to determine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Independent variables (yes YEP and no YEP)dependent variables (TypeCons)Last, a chi-square test was conducted comparing types of consequence to the particular zip code where the crime happened. It determines which areas experience high levels of juvenile delinquency and do those areas contain YEPs.

RESULTSTable 2: Chi-Square Tests

Value dfAsymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 27.755a 2 .000b

Likelihood Ratio 28.922 2 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 9.347 1 .002

N of Valid Cases 227

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.18.

b. Pearson Chi-Square: no significance at α=0.05 or α=0.10; p=.000 reject null hypothesis

53.7% (122 out of 227) of juvenile delinquency occurs in areas that do not have YEPs. 76.8% of youth are punished in the form of a citationP<0.05 (.000) identifying a relationship between the independent and dependent variables and rejecting the null hypothesis.

60.2% of youth were booked around YEPs compared to 39.8% of youth booked in areas with no YEP.

94102, 94103, 94110, 94112, and 94134 experience the highest levels of juvenile delinquency. 3 of these 5 areas contain YEPs. The neighborhoods within these areas are the Tenderloin, Mission and Visitation Valley, some of the most densely populated and larger areas in San Francisco in comparison to other neighborhoods. These areas also experience crime rates.

Policy ImplicationsFundingPolicymakers need to invest in youth

employment.Local agencies & private businesses

Increases responsibility and prepares for the workforce

Suggestions for the FutureConsider: age, income, race and family

background. The YEPs offered in San Francisco are for youth

ages 14 to 17, however, the youngest juvenile booked into juvenile hall is as young as 11.

It is possible that more crime occurred in lower income areas; whether a YEP was in that area or not would not matter because crime may always be high in low-income areas.

Race and family background is also essential from a consequence because some races are arrested at higher rates than others.