An exploratory study of afterschool programs' impact on locus of control scores

(1)

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS’ IMPACT ON LOCUS OF CONTROL SCORES

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of

California State University, Stanislaus

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Social Work

By Manuel Rivera

(2)

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS’ IMPACT ON LOCUS OF CONTROL SCORES

by Manuel Rivera

Shradha Tibrewal, Ph.D. Professor of Social Work

Kilolo Brodie, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Social Work

Date

Date Signed Certification of Approval Page is

(3)

(4)

iv DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my parents Manuel and Guadalupe Rivera. Without your encouragement, guidance, and love this could not be possible. You both are my role models and I’m so grateful and honored to be your son. Also, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my two little sisters Marisela and Veronica Rivera. You two mean the world to me, and this thesis is to demonstrate to you that anything is possible. I love you and know that I’m always here for you.

(5)

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have been blessed to have some great people in my life that were there for me throughout this journey, as well as the people that I met that inspired me and taught me so much. If it had not been for my wife Miriam Rivera, who encouraged me and stayed up with me on those late night writing sessions, this would not have been possible. You always believed in me and for that I thank you. You mean the world to me; know that I love you and am forever indebted to you for your unconditional love and support.

Thank you to all the staff and volunteers at CCPY for your support and for being so welcoming; everyone was extremely friendly and passionate for the work that they do. Thank you for the opportunity to attend camp; it was a great experience. It was amazing seeing all the students demonstrate leadership and being supportive of one another. Also, I would like to acknowledge all the participants of the Step Up program for allowing me to spend time with you. You all inspired me and taught me so much. I wish you all the best in the future.

Lastly, I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Shradha Tibrewal, for all the support and encouragement you have provided me during this journey. Thank you for being patient with me and not giving up on me, as this experience challenged me and pushed me to my limits. I am truly grateful and appreciate all you have done for my thesis and for me.

(6)

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. ROPELOC Scores on Internal and External LOC at the 4 Time Periods ... 35

2. Mean Scores of Internal LOC Statements ... 36

3. Mean Scores of External LOC Statements ... 37

4. One-on-One Mentoring Statements ... 41

5. Safe Environment Statements ... 42

6. Rope Course Challenge Statements ... 43

(9)

ix ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect afterschool programs have on locus of control (internal and external) scores of students. The participants included 26 ninth-grade students from the Step Up program of California Community Partners for Youth. This longitudinal, mixed-methods study aimed to capture and document significant changes through a four-month span of students’ participation in the program. The ROPELOC instrument was used to examine locus of control scores throughout the duration of the study. The qualitative component of this study,

consisting of in-depth interviews, was meant to identify what parts of the program are effective in increasing locus of control scores. Although no statistically significant difference was found, the results indicated that locus of control scores at 4 months into the Step Up program had increased from the beginning of the program. Participants attributed mentoring, safe environment, and rope challenge course as components of the Step Up program that increased their internal locus of control scores. Participants attributed neighborhood violence and family issues as

components that increased external locus of control scores. The findings of this study reflect the need for safe environments where students can receive mentoring as a way to feel empowered to effect change and to feel more in control of their lives. Social workers need to work in collaboration with schools and the larger community to increase neighborhood safety for youth, in order to impact their internal locus of control and overall well-being.

(10)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem

Today, more than ever, youth are exposed to many stressors that can lead them to engage in risky behaviors. According to the United Nations Human

Settlements Program (2003), “Youth at risk” can be defined as young people whose background places them at risk of future offending or victimization due to

environmental, social and family conditions that hinder their personal development and successful integration into the economy and society. A major factor that contributes to students integrating into the economy and society is dropping out of school. Plenty of research suggests that students who drop out of high school on average, in comparison to graduates, experience higher rates of unemployment and incarceration and lower overall lifetime earnings and life expectancy (Bowers, Sprott, & Taff, 2013). Although research suggest multiple theories and factors that contribute to students dropping out of school, a notable factor associated with school success is the personality variable of locus of control (Nowicki Jr., Duke, Sisney, Stricker, & Tyler, 2004). Research suggest that high scores of external locus of control were related to lower academic achievement and higher rates of dropping out (Duke et al., 2004).

Dropping out of high school has significant negative consequences for the individual and society (Dianda, 2008). The National Conference of State Legislatures

(11)

2 (2013) show that over a million students who enter ninth grade, each fall, fail to graduate with their peers four years later, and that approximately seven thousand students drop out every school day. Altogether, the U.S. Census estimates that, in October 2010, almost 28 million youth dropped out of school age eighteen and over (Rumberger, 2011). In California alone, for the 2005-2006 school year, one-hundred-twenty districts had dropout rates higher than the state average and 45 districts had dropout rates higher than twice the state average (Rotermund, 2008).

Students who drop out of high school are thought to be at greater risk for participation in delinquent and criminal behavior (Bushway, Paternoster, & Sweeten, 2009). When compared with high-school graduates, youth who dropped out were more involved in all forms of delinquency, drug use and drug selling, and had more contacts with the juvenile justice system (Bushway et al., 2009). Furthermore, students who drop out are three and one-half times more likely than high school graduates to be arrested, and more than eight times as likely to be in jail or prison (“Keeping Kids in School,” 2013). One theory that attempt to explain why deviancy occurs is the social bonding theory. Travis Hirschi's social bonding theory suggests that delinquency occurs when an individual’s bond to society is weak and/or broken (Intravia, 2009). The bond is composed of four elements that include: (1) attachment; (2) involvement; (3) belief; and (4) commitment (Intravia, 2009). The stronger these elements are, the less likely an individual is to engage in delinquent activities. In contrast, the weaker the four elements, the more likely an individual is to commit a delinquent act (Intravia, 2009).

(12)

3 Although the consequences of dropping out of school are apparent, it is

important to analyze the contributing factors. There are many explanations and theories to what leads a student to drop out of school. According to research,

approximately 8.5 million or 20% of the youth in the United States lack a caring adult in their lives, and those from disadvantaged homes and communities are

over-represented in this number (Cavell, DuBois, Karcher, Keller, & Rhodes, 2009). As research has shown, youth who lack a strong relationship with a caring adult while growing up are much more vulnerable to a host of difficulties, ranging from academic failure to involvement in serious risk behaviors (Cavell et al., 2009). Additionally, national data show that students from low-income families are 2.4 times more likely to drop out of school than are children from middle-income families, and 10.5 times more likely than students from high-income families (“Background on High School Dropouts”).

A key component to look at when investigating a student’s decision to complete high school is locus of control (Duke et al., 2004).Locus of control is the psychological belief of how much control an individual believes he has over events in life (Miu, 2010). Research suggests that students with high external locus of control place a lower value on a high school education and therefore, tend to drop out of high school more often than students with an internal locus of control (Ingrum, 2006). People with an internal locus of control believe that the outcomes of their actions are a result of their own personal efforts, abilities or permanent characteristics. They believe that hard work and personal abilities lead to positive outcome. Thus, these

(13)

4 individuals interpret reinforcements they receive from their surroundings as

contingent upon their own actions (Ingrum, 2006). This belief entails that they are masters of their fates. On the contrary, people with an external locus of control believe that their own actions are dependent on factors outside their personal control (April, Dharani & Peters, 2012). According to April et al. (2012), consequences of behavior are randomly administered and are thought to be controlled by outside forces, such as luck, chance, fate, or powerful others.

Early childhood experiences have strong influence on the formation of locus of control (Miu, 2010). Children at an early age learn to distinguish consequences that are related to the behavior preceding an event and those that are not which lead to the ability to form expectations (Miu, 2010). Consistent parenting with reinforced

discipline and reward are found to be associated with a more internal belief in children (Miu, 2010). Therefore, consistent discipline with reinforcement contingent upon children’s behaviors signals to children that their own behavior affect the reward or punishment that they receive. As a result, internal children are likely to expect their behaviors to have control over what kinds of reinforcement their parents give (Miu, 2010).

Furthermore, in addition to consistent parenting practices, parents can help nurture an internal locus of control in children by encouraging independence. A child that is granted flexibility and autonomy to explore their domains learn that they have increased control over what they experience (Miu, 2010). On the contrary, strict and

(14)

5 controlling parenting approaches stifle self-autonomy and perceived control over consequences (Miu, 2010).

While childhood experiences with parents is a major contributing factor in developing locus of control, environmental influences can alter ones locus of control. Stressful life events have been found to influence children’s belief of the amount of control they have over their environment (Kim, Sandler & Tein, 1996). As

individuals try to confront challenging and stressful life events, they may feel the lack of personal control in changing the outcomes of events. A major life stressor that significantly affects locus of control for children is parental divorce. For example, children from divorced families were found to be more external than children in intact families (Collier, 1994). This is due to the multiple stressors that often accompany divorce that are beyond a child’s control, such as interpersonal conflict, badmouthing, and decreased time spent with parents (Kim et al., 1996). The occurrence of these events leaves the child with the belief that their world is uncontrollable (Kim et al., 1996).

Another environmental factor that places students at risk of developing an external locus of control is poverty. According to the Save the Children Federation (2014), roughly 16 million kids in America—nearly 1 in 4 children—live in poverty. There is vast evidence that identifies that those living in poverty have higher external locus of control than those of more advantaged sections of society (Dalton & Ghosal, 2011). External locus of control is typically associated with lower socioeconomic

(15)

6 status, due to people living in poverty having less control over their lives (Boland, 2003).

Research suggests that one’s neighborhood (environment) influences the development of locus of control. In one study, it was discovered that children who perceived their neighborhood resources as being high were associated with having an internal locus of control as opposed to children who perceived their neighborhood resources as being low that had an external locus of control (Farver, Ghosh, & Garcia, 2000). In a study, Farver et al. (2000) discovered that children who reported feeling safe in their neighborhoods consistently had a more internal locus of control than did children who felt less safe in their neighborhoods. Additionally, studies suggest that as a result from break down of informal social control, urban areas expose residents to negative stimulation, such as crowds, noise, contact with strangers, sirens, dirt, garbage, crime and danger that is conceptually similar to uncontrollable negative reinforcement (Geis & Ross, 1998). Through continued contact with uncontrollable negative reinforcements individuals learn that their attempts to control a situation are ineffective. This results in the lack of control over desired outcomes (Geis & Ross, 1998).

Although there is minimal identified research on the impact afterschool programs have on locus of control, afterschool programs have proven to be a promising solution to increasing student’s chances of succeeding in life (Nicholson, Collins, & Holmer, 2004). Afterschool programs vary in design, but usually consist of having a mentoring component. Furthermore, mentoring relationships also may

(16)

7 facilitate identity development. Illustratively, mentors may help shift youths’

conceptions of both their current and future identities (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, & Silverthorn, 2011).

The California Community Partners for Youth (CCPY) is a mentoring

program for high-risk youth in East San Jose. The Step Up program of CCPY is a ten-month life skills coaching and mentoring program. Step Up pairs high-risk ninth graders with mentors and life skills coaches, providing caring adults who can help develop the student’s s personal responsibility, scholastic achievement, and social skills to overcome barriers to success (CCPY, 2013).

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine locus of control among students enrolled in the Step Up program at CCPY. This study examined the impact CCPY had on high school students on their progression of internal and external locus of control through the duration of the program to capture the how/when/what changes happened, if any. The following research questions guided this study:

 Will students who complete the Step Up program show an increase on scores of locus of control (as measured by ROPELOC)?

 What are youth’s perceptions of the role CCPY played, if any, in these changes?

Significance of the Study

The results of this study will contribute to the field of social work in various ways. First, it will reinforce the importance of continuing to provide mentoring and

(17)

8 after-school support programs for high-risk teens so they stay in school and achieve academic and long term personal success (CCPY, 2013). Secondly, the findings can be used to determine what contributing factors about the CCPY program assist youth to feel they are more in control of their life. Qualitative data obtained by students at different points of the study provided firsthand knowledge of what the students found to be most important to them regarding the program. This is beneficial as data

provided a better understanding of what components/factors contribute to the success of the CCPY program. The findings of the study allow for other programs that work with at-risk youth to develop best practices to better serve the population. The information gathered can also serve as an important prevention educational tool for communities and families as to how better support youth to prevent them from becoming at risk.

(18)

9 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

According to Collier, “people’s perception that they can control the events in their day-to-day lives has a profound effect on the way they seek out, perceive, and process information” (1994, p. 61). The following literature review explores the general concept of locus of control (LOC), characteristics of internal and external LOC, what influences development of LOC orientation, and how afterschool programs impact LOC.

Research demonstrates that external LOC is related to such behavioral problems such as suicide (Martin & Pearce, 1993), school dropout (Duke, Sisney, Stricker, & Tyler, 2004) and sexual promiscuity (Wang’eri & Awuor, 2013). According to Glasser (1986), adolescents partake in self-damaging choices in an attempt to fulfill a basic need such as freedom or belonging. When students believe it is their choices that determine outcomes more than chance or external elements they will be more likely to make effective decisions (Fitch, Marshall, & Miller, 2003). Being that LOC is a proven indicator of at risk behavior, it is important to obtain a healthy understanding of the concept of LOC.

General Overview of Locus of Control

The construct of perceived control emerged from problems encountered in psychotherapy by therapists (Lefcourt, 1976). Therapist had no explanation why

(19)

10 some patients benefited from new experiences and were able to change behaviors as the result of these experiences, while others seemed to discount new experiences by attributing them to chance or to others and not to their own behavior or characteristics (Lefcourt, 1976). This led social learning theorists to try to identify an expectancy variable to explain patients cognitive factor underlying patients self- described

perceptions of control (Lefcourt, 1976). This need for an explanation led Julian Rotter to develop the concept of locus of control from his social learning theory (Lefcourt, 1976). Rotter distinguished between two orientations in locus of control, an internal and external orientation (Boshoff & van Zyl, 2011). Internal versus external control refers to the degree to which a person expects that a reinforcement or an outcome of their behavior is contingent on their own behavior or personal characteristics versus the degree to which a person expects that the reinforcement or outcome is a result of external factors, such as chance, luck or fate, is under the control of powerful others, or is simply unpredictable (Rotter, 1990). Therefore, an individual’s belief about the causal relationship between his or her own behavior and the rewards he or she receives determines one’s self-perception of control in a given situation (Roddenberry, 2007).

When looking at locus of control, people can be classified on a continuum from very internal to very external. A misconception of locus control is the belief that it is a typology, in other words it is not an either/or proposition (Mearns, 2014). Although locus of control is a generalized expectancy that predicts people’s behaviors across situations, there may be specific situations where people who normally are on

(20)

11 one end of the spectrum demonstrate characteristics of the opposite end of the

spectrum, for instance a person who normally is external might display

characteristics of an internal in a specific situation (Mearns, 2014). This is possible due to an individual’s learning history that has shown them that in particular situations they have control over the reinforcement (Mearns, 2014). Social learning theory explains that repeated experience with similar situations produces a specific expectancy in a particular area, such as academic achievement, sports, or social approval (Collier, 1994). In addition, Rotter believed there is also a generalization across dissimilar tasks. Therefore, there are two types of expectancies. One involves specific expectancies for a particular type of task, whereas the other is generalized expectancy based on the overall past history, sequence, and pattern of reinforcement (Collier, 1994). Internal–external LOC is simply a measure of this generalized expectancy. Internal and external LOC are discussed in more depth below.

Internal Locus of Control Characteristics

People with an internal orientation believe that their own behavior and personality characteristics are responsible for behavioral consequences. In other words, people with internal LOC believe that life is what you make of it (Popova, 2012). Research indicates that it is more desirable to possess an internal LOC orientation as internals make decisions regarding their future and take responsibility for them, are better at carrying out tasks, are more worried about their failures, and are more resistant to manipulation; their learning is more intentional, they function higher academically, and their activities are focused on achievement (Lever, Piñol &

(21)

12 Uralde, 2005). Literature suggests that these desirable outcomes are due to LOC serving as a mediator between stress and psychological well-being, concluding that an internal LOC positively influences levels of satisfaction and quality of life (Lever et al., 2005). In the following sections some of the benefits of an internal LOC

orientation will be discussed in more detail.

One of the benefits of possessing an internal LOC orientation is the ability to manage various stressful life events. Research by Norman (2001) identified an internal locus of control, or feeling of being able to have an impact on one’s environment and on others, as a key protective factor possessed by resilient youth. Research demonstrates that locus of control highly correlates with stress

management, coping, and lack of emotional variability (Faitz, 2012). Research suggests that individuals with an internal LOC orientation report less stress than their external LOC counterparts (Faitz, 2012). In a research study conducted by Finn and Rock (1997) that examined students who were classified as "resilient" because of their academic success despite minority status and low-income housing, it was discovered that children differed from their non-successful or "non-resilent" and "dropout" peers in that they had a greater sense of control over their lives.

In addition to being more resilient, youth who possess an internal LOC orientation tend to demonstrate higher academic achievement than students with an external LOC orientation (Collier, 1994). Students with an internal LOC orientation tend to spend more time on homework as well as studying longer for tests (Grantz, 2014). Research indicates that students who possess an internal LOC are less likely to

(22)

13 drop out of school. A study of students at a Libyan International School found that 202 out of 210 of students who maintained satisfactory academic achievement possessed an internal locus of control (Couwenhoven, 2013). Similarly, in Nigeria, a study measured the relationship between academic achievement and locus of control. The findings showed that there was a positive relationship between academic

achievement and locus of control, suggesting that when students perceived they had the ability to control various aspects of their own education they were more likely to gain confidence and take a greater interest in learning (Couvenhoven, 2013). Another study by Sciarra and Whitson (2007) found that students with a more internal locus of control were three times more likely to complete a bachelor’s degree compared to students with a more external locus of control. Lastly, a study conducted in the United States indicated that internal LOC had a significantly positive correlation with grade point average (Garger, Thomas, & Jacques, 2010). The study analyzed LOC

orientation and grade point average (GPA) of 270 undergraduate students from a regional university. The research identified that students with an internal LOC orientation can better leverage self-confidence to social and academic ends in the classroom and better adapted to the intrinsic motivation required for sustained goal-related behaviors needed to be successful in the academic and professional setting (Garger et al., 2010).

Consequently, due to being able to excel in academic settings, research demonstrates that individuals with an internal LOC orientation do better in the workforce in terms of earnings and job satisfaction. A panel study conducted by van

(23)

14 Praag, van der Sluis, & van Witteloostuijn (2004) that looked at LOC orientation and hourly earnings of a sample of 6,111 US young citizens over a period of about two decades discovered that internal LOC orientation is positively associated with hourly earnings for employees. The logic that literature suggests for the reason that internals do better in the workforce than external counterparts is because their positive control expectancies are associated with lower vulnerability to stress, a larger learning capability, and a higher capacity to process information (van Praag et al., 2004). In addition to earning more, research indicates that individuals with an internal LOC orientation report higher rates of job satisfaction than externals (Judge & Bono, 2011). Literature suggests that individuals with an internal LOC orientation should have more job satisfication because they are less likely to stay in a dissatisfying job and are more likely to be successful in organizations (Judge & Bono, 2011).

An additional benefit of having an internal LOC orientation is the ability to delay gratification in completing tasks (Collier, 1994). Literature suggests that individuals with an internal LOC orientation are more successful in accomplishing goals than their external counterparts due to their perceived control over their environment. This perceived control over one’s environment allows individuals to avoid distractions that provide instant gratification. Research conducted by Strickland (1973) found that children who have come to believe that the events that happen to them are a result of their own personal behaviors choose rewards that are more valuable over time in contrast to children who believe that the events that happen to them are beyond their personal control and understanding. In regards to at risk

(24)

15 populations, research indicates that youth who are able to delay gratification are more likely to refrain from using tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (Romer, Duckworth, Sznitman, & Park, 2010).

External Locus of Control Characteristics

External LOC lies on the opposite end of the locus of control spectrum. It differs from internal LOC as it focuses on perceived inabilities to manipulate ones environment. Those with an external locus of control believe that the outcomes of their performances in life are determined by forces beyond their control, such as fate, chance, luck, powerful others and supernatural forces please cite (Hans, 2000). Research suggests that individuals with an external LOC orientation require validation by others regarding their behavior so they can determine whether their behavior is appropriate in a given situation (Piskin, 1996). Externals are characterized as tending to be easily influenced by others and less rational in their thinking, having low self- esteem, being less assertive, and experiencing depression and anxiety (Piskin, 1996). In the following sections, some of the risk factors associated with having an external LOC orientation will be described in more detail followed by a potential benefit as described by the literature.

One of the risk factors of external LOC orientation is that individuals are more likely to experience depression due to the lack of perceived control over their

environment (Benassi, Sweeney, & Dufour, 1998). A meta-analysis conducted by Benassi et al. (1988) explored the nature and strength of the relation between locus of control orientation and depression and found that external LOC orientation and

(25)

16 degree of depression were significantly related. Similarly, research, conducted by Bavojdan, Rahmati, and Towhidi (2011) that looked at the relationship between mental health and locus of control in male drug users revealed that external LOC is a good predictor of mental health issues, such as depression. The researchers go on to state that people with an external LOC orientation feel powerless in managing stressful situations which increases their perceived threat and makes them feel more stressed (Bavojdan et al., 2011).

In addition to experiencing higher levels of depression, research demonstrates that individuals with an external LOC orientation run a higher risk of suicide (Martin & Pearce, 1993). Studies have identified a relationship between locus of control and suicidal behavior among adolescents and young adults (Martin & Pearce, 1993). In a study conducted by Martin and Pearce (1993) that looked at the relationship between LOC and a range of suicidal behaviors of 405 students from a metropolitan high school identified a clear association between LOC and suicidal behavior, with students who had engaged in suicidal behaviors characterized by a more external LOC orientation. Also, research conducted by Slater and Depue (1981) found that those who attempted suicide tended to report an increase in experience with events that were outside of their control for a period of time prior to the suicide action.

Aside from experiencing higher levels of depression and risk of suicide, individuals with an external LOC orientation are more likely to experience poor academic achievement. A study conducted by Basgall and Snyder (1988) found that students who consistently attribute failures to external factors are more likely to lose

(26)

17 their motivation to succeed than students who attribute success to internal factors. In addition, research suggests that students with an external locus of control placed a lower value on a high school education, therefore tending to drop out of high school more often than students with an internal locus of control (Ingrum, 2006). Research also shows that students who possess an external orientation engage more in

procrastination, which affects their academic performance. Additionally,

procrastination not only impedes academic success, but also decreases the quality and quantity of learning while simultaneously increasing the severity of stress, anxiety, and health-related problems (Klingsieck, Grund, Schmid, & Fries, 2013).

Although the majority of research suggests that an internal LOC is more desirable than an external LOC, some research suggests that an external orientation can serve to protect self- esteem of an individual (Piskin, 1996). Piskin explains that individuals who believe that failure is due to external forces evade personal

responsibility, therefore, reducing some of the unpleasant effects of the failure (Piskin, 1996). Unfortunately, there exist concrete social conditions that impacts one’s perceived sense of control. Literature often uses the experiences of the African American population and the poor in the United States to support this claim. Collier (1994) describes that African Americans and poor are handicapped by social

conditions that limit aspirations, achievement and by their own internalized beliefs that their lives are shaped by economic and political institutions beyond their control. Collier goes on to describe the realistic disadvantages that African Americans face in the United States as the result of an economic structure of racism (1994). In these

(27)

18 social conditions with scarce opportunities an individual might develop a low self-esteem as he or she will attribute failures to self as opposed to the real disadvantages of the environment (Shabazz, 2007).

Factors that Develop Locus of Control Orientation

Being that LOC has been proven to be a strong indicator of youths wellbeing (Hans, 2000), it is important to understand how a LOC orientation is developed. The construct of Locus of Control was derived from the Social Learning Theory

developed by Rotter in 1966. Rotter believed that a person’s control orientation develops from personal history of reinforcements within an individual’s environment (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979). Reinforcements have to do with consequences

(outcomes), which include reward and punishments (Miller, 2005). Reward is a consequence that increases behavior and punishment is a consequence that decreases behavior (Miller, 2005). Furthermore, when the individual is reinforced for a specific act, the individual expects that if the same act is duplicated, the same or a compatible reinforcement will follow (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979). Therefore, if the individual’s expectancy for the reinforcement is confirmed from future similar situations, a stronger expectancy is developed (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979). Literature suggests that change in locus of control happens when the reinforcement in new social

experiences change previous patterns of success and failure (Hans, 2000). Therefore, consistent change in reinforcement can lead to altering an individual’s LOC

(28)

19 to the development of LOC orientation, which include parenting, school environment, neighborhood environment, oppression and poverty will be described.

Parenting Style

As the primary agents of socialization and monitoring, the family plays a key role in the development of a youth’s locus of control (Almajali, 2012). Parenting styles impact whether a child’s locus of control orientation is internal or external (Lynch, Hurford, & Cole, 2002). A study conducted by McClun and Merrell (1998) looked at the relationship between parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) and adolescent locus of control orientation.

The main results of this study indicated that adolescents who perceived their parents as having an authoritative parenting style had a more internal locus of control orientation than those who perceived their parents as having either an authoritarian or permissive parenting style (McClun & Merrell, 1998). Additionally, the study

discovered that students who perceived their parents as having an authoritarian

parenting style reported the most extreme locus of control orientation. The findings of this study demonstrate that effective parenting in the development of internal LOC should involve an appropriate balance of warmth and restrictiveness and the need for parents to be supportive and emotionally available to their children (McClun & Merrell, 1998). On the contrary, research suggests that a harsh and rejecting family environment is more prone to encourage the development of an external locus of control through inconsistent reinforcements (Ahlin, 2014).

(29)

20 Role of Schools

Being that locus of control is an important predictor of academic achievement, schools play a significant role in the formation of LOC orientation (Miller, 2005). A student in the American school system spends the best part of his or her first 12 years of life within a classroom. This allows educators to build relationships with students that can allow them to become the most influential adults in students’ lives, second only to parents (Miller, 2005). Research suggests that a teacher’s orientation of LOC plays a vital role in changing LOC orientations of students as teachers often serve as role models to students in modeling pro social behaviors that allow students to feel in control of different components of their life, including education. Research conducted by Kourilsky and Keislar (1983), identified that students who were taught by an internal LOC-oriented teacher showed significantly larger residual gains on perceived personal control of their own academic success and failure and a favorable attitude toward learning than did students in classes taught by a teacher with an external LOC orientation.

Teachers, additionally, can foster an environment that increases internal LOC by developing a clear understanding of cause and effect (Shindler, 2009). Teachers can provide students with choices and expect accountability for their choices and emphasize that their achievement is directly related to their behavior, particularly their level of effort (Shindler, 2009). As students become aware of their abilities to control their environment, educators can encourage youth to set attainable goals that they can work towards that target personal development and academic improvement

(30)

21 (Almajali, 2012). Students who succeeds in school reinforces their internal LOC orientation that they have control over their outcomes (Benham, 1995).

Oppression

While parents and schools play an important role in what kind of LOC a child develops, the larger context of the environment that individuals live in cannot be ignored. In the following sections macro factors that can possibly shape LOC orientation will be described. Because oppressed groups of people perceive limited control over their environment, oppression can influence LOC orientation. Research on generalized expectancies of locus of control suggests that ethnic group members (Jackson, 2006) and socio-economically disadvantaged (Collier, 1994) groups of people score significantly higher on the external end of the locus of control continuum. Individuals who fall into this quadrant are more likely to accept the dominant culture’s definition of self-responsibility but feel they have very little real control over how they are defined by others (Sue & Sue, 2012). A person high in external control feels that there is very little one can do in the face of such severe external obstacles as prejudice and discrimination. An extreme consequence of oppression is the development of “learned helplessness”, which is described as a psychological state that often results when events are uncontrollable (Sue & Sue, 2012). According to the learned helplessness theory, exposure to uncontrollable events gives rise to the expectation that events in the future will also be

uncontrollable, which would result in passivity, demoralization and even depression (Wong, 2006). In addition, attributes associated with a pattern of human learned

(31)

22 helplessness have also been described as contributing to the onset of adolescent drug use, as well as the maintenance of chronic substance abuse (Sterling, Gotthiel, Weinstein, Lundy, & Serota, 1996).

Poverty

Along with oppression, research indicates that poverty can shape locus of control orientation (Dalton & Ghosal, 2011). Parents serve as models for their children, and those in the lower class typically have less access to power and little control over their own lives (Collier, 1994). As Phares (1973) stated, those groups of people “which have little access to real power or material advantages, and those whose members perceive their overall movement within society as being greatly limited, will more likely be external in their belief systems” (p. 18). Additionally, lower-class parents are typically more authoritarian and stress obedience and respect for authority which might lead to the development of an external LOC orientation, whereas middle class parents place more emphasis on independence and are more likely to use suggestions rather than directives (Collier, 1994).

Neighborhood

Another important variable that affects locus of control is the neighborhood one lives in, especially neighborhood violence. Research has shown that children living in high violence neighborhoods felt unsafe playing outdoors, were more distrustful of the police, had lower perceived self-competence and an external locus of control compared to children living in low violence neighborhoods (Farver & Garcia, 1997). The findings suggest that children’s exposure to neighborhood

(32)

23 violence is associated with their feelings of well-being, sense of self, control over events in their lives, and opportunities to play safely in their neighborhoods (Farver & Garcia, 1997). The community approach to crime prevention, assumes that

contemporary crime problems reflect the decline of the traditional structure of urban neighborhoods (Skogan, 1988). While in the past people were poor and illiterate, and levels of cyclical unemployment were often extreme, crime rates remained low because the traditional agents of social control were strong: families, churches, schools, ethnic solidarity, and traditional values (Skogan, 1988). Therefore, a child’s perception of feeling safe in their environment and belief in their ability to control factors will assist in shaping an internal LOC as opposed to a child who lives in fear and presumes no control over his or her environment, who then will develop an external LOC orientation (Farver & Garcia, 1997).

Afterschool Programs’ Impact on Locus of Control

Evidence is mounting that where and how youth spend their time outside of normal school hours has important implications for their development (Oakley, 2008). Although very little research has been done on afterschool programs and their impact on LOC, research does demonstrate that afterschool programs enhance various resiliency factors that allow youth to better control outcomes of their life; these

factors include problem solving, leadership skills, self-control, conflict resolution and responsible decision-making skills (Durlak, Pachan, & Weissberg, 2010). A study conducted by Durlak et al. (2010) found that afterschool programs that utilized evidence-based practices were associated with significant improvements in

(33)

self-24 perceptions, school bonding and positive social behaviors; significant reductions in conduct problems and drug use; and significant increases in achievements test scores, grades and attendance.

When looking at what makes an afterschool program successful, research suggest that important elements include quality programming and staffing (Wong, 2009). A decade of research has found that high quality afterschool programs entail having a clear vision and goals for the program, as well as strong directed leadership and sustained training and support to staff (Wong, 2009). Additionally, research identified the importance of the establishment of positive relationships between youth and program staff (Wong, 2009). Limited literature suggests that youth can develop and/or strengthen their internal LOC from opportunities for meaningful involvement and participation, such as those found in youth-adult partnerships (Norman, 2001). The relationship allows staff to model good behavior, actively promote mastery of skills or concepts in activities, listen attentively to feedback and guidance, and establish clear expectations for mature, respectful interactions with peers (Norman, 2001).

Even though research is limited on the overall role afterschool programs play on youth’s LOC, specific components of afterschool programs have been shown to impact youth’s LOC. For example, one component is mentoring (Norman, 2001) and another component is Challenge ropes camps (Hans, 2000). Studies show that

mentoring has the potential to be a successful intervention strategy to address risk among youth and to promote positive behaviors and attitudes (Federal Mentoring

(34)

25 Council, 2014). In regards to LOC, students might be slow to develop an internal LOC orientation as a result of their past educational history and social back ground that may have been impacted by external factors that seemed arbitrary and out of control by the students (Shabazz, 2007). Shabazz (2007) suggested that, for schools to counteract forces leading to external LOC in students, mentoring must be developed which addresses problem areas that prevent students from identifying that their personal efforts lead to success. Additionally, one-to-one mentoring programs

promote positive outcomes by helping youth develop a healthy sense of identity while strengthening self-regulation skills (Copeland & Beins, 2005). In addition, mentors can offer mentees a multitude of other benefits, including improved self-esteem, stronger relationships with parents and peers, greater school connectedness, improved academic performance, and reduction in substance abuse, violence and other high-risk behaviors (Afterschool Alliance, 2009), which in turn, can lead to an increase in their internal LOC. In summary, mentors empower youth to be agents of their own change, by providing support and expectations necessary to grow (Hamilton, 2011).

In addition to mentoring, research indicates that adventure programs, such as rope challenge courses impact LOC orientation (Hans, 2000). Rope course activity studies have indicated a variety of benefits related to outdoor adventure education programs, such as rope course activities, which include an increase in internal LOC, self-esteem and confidence, moral reasoning, and leadership autonomy (Merrell, 2009). Literature on LOC and rope courses suggest that five variables associated with the Ropes Course may attribute to developing an internal LOC orientation, which

(35)

26 include risk, competence, leadership, cooperation and self-esteem (Hans, 2000). Research conducted by Merrell (2009) identified that internal LOC scores improved from pre-program to post-program for students who attended a two-day summer adventure-based ropes camp. The advantage of rope course challenges is that it provides an experimental learning environment where individuals or groups are placed in “real to life” situations where they have to employ problem solving or other methods to take control of the environment and the presenting task (Hans, 2000). A meta-analysis conducted by Hans (2000) looked at the relationship between adventure programs and the psychological construct of LOC from data gathered from 30

previous studies. The findings showed that subjects across studies became significantly more internal in their locus of control as a result of participation.

Summary

A review of the literature demonstrates that LOC is an important factor that contributes to youth resiliency. Literature demonstrates that possessing an internal LOC is more desirable as it allows youth to have more control over their lives and their environment. Many environmental factors influence the development of LOC orientation such as neighborhood violence, oppression, and family upbringing. Even though there is a lot of research on why LOC is important and what contributes to it, there is limited research on the role after school programs play on students’ locus of control. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to better understand what factors students contribute to increasing LOC scores and to better understand how afterschool programs impact LOC orientation.

(36)

27 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

Overview

The purpose of this study was to examine locus of control (LOC) among youth who participated in the Step Up part of the CCPY program during a 4 month span. This study captured and documented changes in their locus of control scores, if any, through the duration of the student’s participation in the CCPY program. The research questions that guided this study were:

 Will students who complete the CCPY Step Up program show an increase on scores of locus of control?

 What are youth’s perceptions of the role CCPY played, if any, in these changes?

Design

This study was conducted using a descriptive research design. This type of design was chosen for this study as it described students’ locus of control scores during their involvement in the Step Up program. This study was longitudinal in nature as it involved the collection of data at different points in time between the start of the program to four months into the program. A panel study was administered being that the same set of students were followed throughout the study. According to Rubin and Babbie (2010), “By taking repeated measures of changes in the target problem, the practitioner both monitors the client’s progress and acquires a tool for

(37)

28 more systematic understanding of events or circumstances that may exacerbate or ameliorate the target population” (p. 295). This study used a mixed-method design, i.e. a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

Sampling Plan

Participants for this study were recruited using non-probability sampling. Nonprobability sampling results in a nonrandom sample that is not scientific or precise, and that is selected by the researcher (Rubin & Babbie, 2010). This study consisted of using purposive sampling, a sampling technique where participants are recruited driven by the purpose of the research (Rubin and Babbie, 2010). Since participants needed to be currently enrolled in the Step Up program offered by CCPY, this sampling technique was the most appropriate. Step Up youth were ninth graders who attended either Yerba Buena or Overfelt High School; both schools are located in east San Jose. Since most of the students were under 18 years of age, parental consent was sought before participating in the study. CCPY assisted the researcher with recruiting the youth and obtaining parental approval. CCPY announced the details of the study and obtained names of the youth interested in participating in the study for the researcher.

Data Collection

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in attempt to capture and document changes in the student’s locus of control scores through the duration of their participation in the CCPY program. Quantitative data were utilized to document the trajectory of change in students’ locust of control scores. Data were collected at 4

(38)

29 different points throughout the program, which included Time 1, before the

participants started the program, followed by Time 2, within a month after the Intake Process. Time 3, four months into the program (half-way) and Time 4, right after the youths returned from a 3 day residential camp. Case numbers were created for every participant and used to collect quantitative data.

Both qualitative and quantitative data collection took place at participating high schools, Yerba Buena and Overfelt. The study began fall of 2013 and was completed in spring of 2014. Students took approximately 30 minutes to complete the 4 quantitative surveys.

The qualitative data consisted of in-depth interview at two points in time, within a month after the Intake Process, and at four-five months into the program (halfway). Additionally, Dr. Shradha Tibrewal and this researcher analyzed the quantitative data at each point of data collection and used it to guide the interviews. The purpose of the interviews were to provide the qualitative explanations for some of the changes noticed through the quantitative data, as even though the quantitative data described the statistical differences in the outcomes, it did not help understand the how/why of these changes which helped tremendously in making data driven changes to the program to make it more effective in meeting the needs of this population.

(39)

30 Instrumentation

This study utilized the Review of Personal Effectiveness with Locus of Control (ROPELOC instrument), which was developed to tap into key actions and behaviors that indicate a person’s effectiveness in a variety of critical areas of life. The ROPELOC consists of 45 questions that focuses on 14 scales; including personal abilities and beliefs (Self-Confidence, Self-Efficacy, Stress Management, Open Thinking), social abilities (Social Effectiveness, Cooperative Teamwork, Leadership Ability), organizational skills (Time Management, Quality Seeking, Coping with Change) an ‘energy’ scale called Active Involvement and a measure of overall effectiveness in all aspects of life. In addition, the instrument has an in-built Control Scale that helps to determine whether changes reported in the other scales are due to program effects or simply due to retesting on the same instrument. The two Locus of Control scales, which this study utilized, measured the tendency to take responsibility for self-actions and successes. This researcher used the personal abilities and beliefs and the locus of control questions. The ROPELOC instrument in the first trial sample (n = 1250) had an internal average reliability of .849 (Cronbach alpha) for its 14 subscales (Ellis, Neill, & Richards, 2002).

Data Analysis

Neuman’s five-part plan for creating themes in qualitative analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. The five-part plan for data analysis included sorting and classifying, open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and interpreting and elaborating. The data were organized around the interview questions. Themes were

(40)

31 located from the interviews and assigned codes to reduce mass data into specific categories as part of open coding. Following open coding, the researcher used axial coding to focus on initial coding rather than data. At this time additional codes and new themes were created that might have been missed during open coding. The final pass through of the data was selective coding, during which the researcher

specifically looked for cases or direct quotes that illustrate the themes. In the last step, interpreting and elaborating, the findings were compared to the existing literature and explanations for the findings were offered.

Quantitative data from the questionnaires were coded and analyzed using SPSS. A Paired samples t-test was used to compare the locus of control scores within two separate time points (Time 1 and Time 2, Time 2 and Time 3, Time 3 and 4, and Time 1 and 4). A univariate analysis was used to explore each variable separately. The univariate analyses identified the range of values, as well as the central tendency of the values. In addition, it provided a description of the pattern of responses to the variable.

Protection of Human Subjects

Being that participants were under the age of 18, parental and youth consent were required prior to taking part in the study. The data were collected after receiving approval from the University Institutional Review Board. The participants were informed that participation in the study was completely voluntary and they could choose not to answer any question or terminate participation at any time. They were informed that if any question triggers any discomfort, CCPY mentors and coaches

(41)

32 would be available to them, if needed. Participants were informed that data obtained would be protected from all inappropriate disclosures under the law and it would be securely locked during the course of study. They also were informed that all notes would be shredded and tapes erased one year after the completion of the study anticipated to be June-July, 2014.

(42)

33 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine locus of control (LOC) among youth who participated in the Step Up part of the CCPY program during a 4 month span. The study sought to capture and document changes in their locus of control scores, if any, through the duration of the students’ participation in the CCPY program. The research questions that guided this study were as follows: (a) Will students who participate in the Step Up program show an increase on scores of locus of control (as measured by ROPELOC)? and (b) What are youth’s perceptions of the role CCPY played, if any, in these changes? This chapter provides a description of the sample and the findings of the study, specifically, the average internal and external locus of control scores and the differences in the group, if any, over time.

Overview of Sample

A total of 26 students from the Step Up part of the CCPY program were included in the study. Step Up youth are ninth graders who have voluntarily chosen to apply into this afterschool mentoring program. Of the 26 participants, 6 are male and 20 are female. Fourteen students attend Overfelt High School in east San Jose, of whom 3 are males and 11 are females. Twelve students attend Yerba Buena High School in east San Jose, of whom 3 are males and 9 are females.

A univariate analysis was run on all variables to describe the sample with regard to locus of control (LOC) scores including, internal, external and combined

(43)

34 internal and external scores. Measures of central tendency were used to analyze data, specifically mean, and standard deviation. Following the univariate analysis, bivariate analyses were conducted to examine the difference in variables at four different points throughout the Step Up Program. The four points include the beginning of the program (baseline), a month in to the program, four months in to the program and five months in to the program, right after the youth returned from a 4-day residential camp. If parametric assumptions were met, a paired-sample t-test was used to examine the difference of LOC scores, if any, over the four periods of time. If parametric assumptions were not met, the researcher used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, to examine the difference in LOC scores, if any, over the four periods of time.

ROPELOC Assessment Survey

The: Review of Personal Effectiveness and Locus of Control (ROPELOC) scale is a tool designed to tap into key actions and behaviors that indicate a person’s effectiveness in a variety of critical areas of life. The ROPELOC instrument contains 45 statements of which 6 statements (3 pertain to internal LOC and 3 to external LOC) are designed to measure locus of control. Students were asked to rate where they best identified on a Likert scale of 1 (False, Not like me) to 8 (True, Like me). The ROPELOC instrument does not contain any negatively worded items; therefore, a higher score on the Likert scale signifies a high level of internal or external locus of control. Oppositely, a low score on the statement identifies a lower score of LOC. The range of score a respondent could obtain in terms of LOC was a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 24.

(44)

35 Change in ROPELOC Scores Over Time

The first research question examinedif students who participated in the Step Up program showed an increase in their locus of control scores (as measured by ROPELOC). Table 1 shows students’ average scores of locus of control over time, including minimum and maximum scores, along with their mean scores on internal and external locus of control during the 4 different time periods. Results show that the mean (average) scores were at the highest point at time 4, indicating that all scores have increased from the beginning (baseline) of the Step Up program. Specifically, the mean score at Time 4 on internal locus of control (ILOC) was 19.8 as compared to 19.1 at baseline or Time 1. The mean score for internal LOC decreased slightly at Time 2 (18.8), but increased at Time 3 (19.0) and continued to increase at Time 4 (19.8). Similarly, Time 4 score for the external locus of control (ELOC) was 11.1 as compared to 9.9 at Time 1.

Table 1

ROPELOC Scores on Internal and External LOC at the 4 Time Periods Mean ILOC Mean ELOC Minimum-Maximum

ILOC scores Minimum-Maximum ELOC scores Time 1 19.1 9.9 9/24 3/22 Time 2 18.8 10.8 10/24 3/23 Time 3 19.0 9.8 8/24 3/21 Time 4 19.8 11.1 15/24 3/23

(45)

36 Characteristics of Individual Statements of ROPELOC

To further analyze the data regarding LOC scores, the individual statements that measured internal and external LOC on the ROPELOC instrument were observed. When looking at the statements individually, the lowest possible score a student could obtain was a 1 and the highest score an 8. Table 2 shows that the statement that had the highest mean score with respect to internal LOC was statement 2 with a score of 6.7 during Time 4. The statement that had the largest increase from Time 1 to Time 4 was Statement 3 from a mean score of 6 to a mean score of 6.5. Additionally, the table indicates that Statements 2 and 3 have increased from baseline to Time 4.

Table 2

Mean Scores of Internal LOC Statements

The statements on the ROPELOC instrument that measured external LOC scores consisted of Statement 1: “Luck, other people and events control most of my life”; Statement 2, “My future is mostly in the hands of other people,” and Statement

Statement Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

My own efforts and actions are what will determine my future

6.8 6.3 6.3 6.6

What I do and how I do it will determine my success in life 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.7 If I succeed in life it will be because of my efforts 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.5

(46)

37 3, “My life is mostly controlled by external things.” Similar to internal LOC scores, the lowest possible score a student could obtain was a 1 and the highest an 8. Table 3 demonstrates that the statement that had the highest mean score with respect to external LOC was Statement 3 with a score of 4.1 during Time 4. The lowest mean score was Statement 2 during Time 1 with a score of 2.5. Table 3 indicates that all scores during Time 4 had increased from Time 1 scores. The statement with the most change was Statement 2 that had a mean score of 2.5 at Time 1 and a mean score of 3.3 during Time 4.

Table 3

Mean Scores of External LOC Statements

Comparison of Locus of Control Scores Among Different Time Points The researcher examined the results to examine whether or not there was a statistically significant difference among the LOC scores of the students across the different time points in the program that the ROPELOC instrument was administered. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare LOC scores between two time

Statement Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Luck, other people and events control most of my life

3.4 3.6 3.3 3.6

My future is mostly in the hands of other people

2.5 3.2 2.5 3.3

My life is mostly controlled by external things

(47)

38 points, for instance a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2. The comparison scores that this study focuses on are Time 1 and Time 2, Time 2 and Time 3, Time 3 and Time 4, and lastly Time 1 and Time 4. The following section will describe the results of the analyses.

Time 1 and Time 2 Comparison of LOC

The paired-sample t-test identified that there was not a statistically significant difference in the scores for Time 1 internal LOC (M = 19.1, SD = 3.8) and Time 2 internal LOC scores (M = 18.8, SD = 4.2) conditions; t(25) = .358, p = .723. These results suggest that internal LOC scores for students in the Step Up program have not significantly changed between the intake (baseline) process and one month into the program. The paired-sample t-test also identified that there was not a statistically significant difference in the scores for Time 1 external LOC (M = 9.9, SD = 4.1) and Time 2 external LOC (M = 10.8, SD = 4.5) conditions; t(25) = -.860, p = .398. The results suggest that external LOC scores for students in the Step Up program have not significantly changed from the intake (baseline) process to one month into the

program.

Time 2 and Time 3 Comparison of LOC

The paired-sample t-test identified that there was not a statistically significant difference in the scores for Time 2 internal LOC (M = 18.8, SD = 4.2) and Time 3 internal LOC scores (M = 19, SD = 4.4) conditions; t(25) = -.197, p = .846. These results suggest that internal LOC did not significantly change between 1 month and 4 months into the Step Up program. The paired-sample t-test identified that there was

(48)

39 not a statistically significant difference in the scores for Time 2 external LOC (M = 10.8, SD = 4.5) and Time 3 external LOC scores (M = 9.8, SD = 4.9) conditions; t(25) = 1.122, p = .272. These results suggest that there was no significant change between external LOC scores from 1 month to 4 months of being in the CCPY program. Time 3 and Time 4 Comparison of LOC

The paired-sample t-test identified that there was not a statistically significant difference in the scores for Time 3 internal LOC (M = 19, SD = 4.4) and Time 4 internal LOC scores (M = 19.8, SD = 3.5) conditions; t(25) = -.948, p = .352. These results suggest that there was no statistically significant change in internal LOC scores of Step Up students from 4 months to 5 months of being in the program. The paired-sample t-test identified that there was not a statistically significant difference in the scores for Time 3 external LOC (M = 9.8, SD = 4.9) and Time 4 external LOC scores (M = 11.1, SD = 5.6) conditions; t(25) = -1.022, p = .316. The findings suggest that no significant change occurred among external LOC scores of students between month 4 and month 5 of the Step Up program.

Time 1 and Time 4 Comparisons of LOC

The paired-sample t-test identified that there was not a statistically significant difference in the scores for Time 1 internal LOC (M = 19.1, SD = 3.8) and Time 4 internal LOC scores (M = 19.8, SD = 3.5) conditions; t(25) = -.892, p = .381. The research suggests that there was no statistically significant change between internal LOC scores from the beginning (intake) of the Step Up program up until 5 months into the program. The paired-sample t-test identified that there was not a significant

(49)

40 difference in the scores for Time 1 external LOC (M = 9.9, SD = 4.1) and Time 4 external LOC scores (M = 11.1, SD = 5.6) conditions; t(25) = -1.065, p = .297.

Qualitative Findings

The second research question examined the youth’s perceptions of the role CCPY played, if any, in the changes in the LOC scores. Interviews were conducted with participants to record qualitative explanations for some of the changes noticed through the quantitative data. The results from the interviews produced 3 major themes that students identified from the Step Up part of the CCPY program that has contributed to them feeling more in control of their life, which include one-on-one mentoring, safe environment and rope challenge course. In the following section, the major themes will be described in more detail, including direct quotes from student participants.

One-on-One Mentoring

One of the prevalent themes identified through the interviews was the

importance of the one-on-one mentoring. Twenty five out of the 26 participants in the study identified that the one-on-one relationship with the CCPY staff, including assigned mentor, coach and program coordinators assisted them in increasing their perceived control over the outcomes in their lives. Students identified that staff were always there if needed and provided them guidance and support in their time of need. The following (Table 4) are some of the excerpts from the students in their own words, which highlight their perception of the importance of the mentoring component of the Step Up program.

(50)

41 Table 4

One-on-One Mentoring Statements Participants’ Comments

 I feel now that I have control over the decisions I make. Before I didn’t feel so much that I had control over things. I felt like everything just happened to me. Talking with my mentor has helped me realize that I’m the one that is in control of my life.

 My coaching sessions are helping me realize that not all the problems in my family are my fault. Because sometimes it felt that way with all the yelling all the time and stress. Now I realize there are things I have control over and there are things I do not.

 I feel like that people influence but at the end you control what you do. You have power to make decisions depending on where you want to go. That is something really important that I have learned here from speaking with my coach and mentor.

 The program (CCPY) is great and especially having staff that is there to help me with my problems. Now I feel like I have control over things.

 Coaching sessions with my mentor have been helping me with decision making. It helps me think about my choices and which one is best for me. At camp, the jump rope course I was not going to do it. I didn’t want to do it but my mentor really pushed me to do it and told me not to be scared…and my mentor helped me feel like I was a part of the camp experience…and she would tell me to trust her and that doing the activities would make me see things differently and help me out.

Safe Environment

In addition to having one-on-one mentoring, students identified that having a safe environment to spend time after school allowed them to lower their guard and explore thoughts and behaviors that would prevent them from achieving their goals. Eighteen out of the 26 participants identified that having a safe place to spend their

(51)

42 time after school was important in helping them achieve their goals. Some students shared concerns about their safety due to neighborhood violence and gangs. Table 5 summarizes some of the quotes from the students, which highlights their perception of the importance of having a safe environment in order to feel more in control of their lives.

Table 5

Safe Environment Statements Participants’ Comments

 Being here at CCPY helps, it’s nice having a safe place to just hang out and take your mind off of things so you can think of what to do next.

 CCPY is a safe environment where we can talk about things going on in our life. I never knew that somebody could talk to me and not make me feel like they were not judging me. Here the people are just trying to help and provide me comments on what are the things I should do to help me accomplish my goals and graduate.

 CCPY is a safe environment where you can be yourself. It’s hard because in the streets you have to act a certain way and you always watching your back. Here I can be myself and focus on me and what I need to do.

 I was getting into trouble in the neighborhood because

An exploratory study of afterschool programs' impact on locus of control scores