Nancy G. Guerra & Kirk R. Williams, UC Riverside

1. Building an Ecology of Peace in Urban Communities: Individual level interventions to reduce violence in Jamaica Nancy G. Guerra & Kirk R. Williams, UC Riverside Julie Meeks-Gardner, University of the West Indies Ian Walker, World Bank University of Lancashire, Preston, UK, June 2009

2. Welcome to Jamaica

3. International Homicide Rates

4. The “other” Jamaica

5. An Ecology of Danger • Extreme poverty-per capita GDP less than $2,000; 30% of population does not have access to sanitation • Transnational shipment of cocaine • Slave plantation/colonial heritage-social exclusion • Political violence; organized crime (dons) • Absence of the “state”—informer fi dead • Family stressors-father absent families—Matey Wars • Availability of guns (“tools”) 30% travel with weapons • Subculture of violence (harsh punishment, revenge)

6. How can we build an ecology of peace in the context of danger and violence? • Community-level programs • Individual-level programs

7. Individual-level Programs: Kingston YMCA • At-risk boys ages 14 to 16 expelled from regular school. Attend 1-6 school terms. • Alternative secondary education curriculum including literacy, math, health education, reproductive health, life skills and computer classes, among other activities.

8. Two Primary Evaluation Questions • Do these programs help youth build competencies and prepare for the future? • Are these programs (in the context of multiple contextual risk factors) effective in preventing or reducing youth violence?

9. Methodology • Administer Jamaica Youth Survey to 128 program participants and 55 wait list controls. • Conduct tracer study of 150 youth using propensity score matching not in YMCA (currently underway).

10. Jamaica Youth Survey • Self report of physical aggression • What would make you fight • Core competencies • Masculine identity

11. Physical Aggression: In the last month (give date), how many times have you: Items: Factor Loadings1 Shoved or pushed someone .700 Threatened to hit or physically harm someone .724 Been in a fight and hit someone .672 Thrown something at someone to hurt them .616 Hit or slapped someone .794 Cronbach’s Alpha = .743 1Principal Components Factor Analysis with Oblique Rotation (Single factor, eigenvalue = 2.475)

12. What Would Make You Fight: Would you hit or fight with a male if: Items: Factor Loadings1 He hit you first .645 He shouted at you and called you names .627 He spread rumors or lies about you behind your back .718 He took something of yours without asking .546 You were in angry or in a bad mood .607 You wanted to get revenge .691 He said something bad about a family member .655 Cronbach’s Alpha = .762 1Principal Components Factor Analysis with Oblique Rotation (Single factor, eigenvalue = 2.897)

13. What Would Make You Fight: Would you hit or fight with a female if: Items: Factor Loadings1 She hit you first .565 She shouted at you and called you names .587 She spread rumors or lies about you behind your back .756 She took something of yours without asking .604 You were in angry or in a bad mood .641 You wanted to get revenge .574 She said something bad about a family member .658 Cronbach’s Alpha = .744 1Principal Components Factor Analysis with Oblique Rotation (Single factor, eigenvalue = 2.771)

14. Estimated Effects of Masculine Identity Items on Physical Aggression Factor Score (Ordinary Least Squares Regression) Variables b se t Beta Violent1 .396* .150 2.640 .193 Ready2 .483* .142 3.401 .249 Constant -.347* .089 -3.899 Adj. R2 .112* 1Being violent is a “man ting” 2Men must be ready to use violence at any time *p<.05, two-tailed test is statistical significance

15. Estimated Effects of Masculine Identity Items and What Would Make You Fight Scales (MUF) on Physical Aggression Factor Score (OLS) Variables b se t Beta Violent1 .203 .136 1.493 .099 Ready2 .163 .134 1.216 .084 Male MUF .310* .074 4.189 .334 Female MUF .202* .074 2.730 .214 Constant -.181* .082 -2.207 Adj. R2 .302 1Being violent is a “man ting” 2Men must be ready to use violence at any time *p<.05, two-tailed test is statistical significance

16. Program Exposure N % 0=No exposure (comparison group) 55 30.1 1=Less than six months 58 31.7 2=Six months-1 year 35 19.1 3=Over 1 year 35 19.1

17. Estimated Effects of Masculine Identity Items, MUF Scales, and Program Exposure on Physical Aggression Factor Score (OLS) Variables b se t Beta Violent1 .204 .135 1.511 .100 Ready2 .175 .133 1.316 .090 Male MUF .294* .074 3.973 .316 Female MUF .223* .074 3.014 .235 Program Exposure -.109* .105 -1.982 -.126 Constant -.181* .082 -2.207 Adj. R2 .314 1Being violent is a “man ting” 2Men must be ready to use violence at any time *p<.05, two-tailed test is statistical significance

18. The program helped to become better at: • Helping others who have an argument to work it out peacefully and dealing with myself when I am angry. • Coming up with creative ways of working out a problem or something that is hard to do (unusual, not normal). • Connecting with other people on a deeper level. (Developing close friendships/ Becoming close friends with others). • Having a high opinion and being considerate of myself and others. • Managing my own life, and taking responsibility for things and people. • Planning what I will be doing in the future. 74.4% (of 128 participants) claimed the program helped “quite a bit” or “a great deal” across these items!

19. The program changed my life for the better1 N % No change 4 3.1 Somewhat or a lot 124 96.9 1(gone back to school, working harder in school, wasn’t working but now I am, helping in my community, providing leadership in my school and community)

20. The program changed my future ideas1 N % Not at all 11 8.6 Not much 22 17.2 Somewhat or a lot 95 74.2 1(education, jobs, community and volunteer work, leadership in community activities)

21. In conclusion • ¾ of YMCA program participants felt it changed their life for the better. • Increased participation in the YMCA program was associated with decreases in physical aggression.

22. Thank you!