J.19 Result of EF in the Risk of Violence and its fac.pdf

The Results of Empleando Futuros on the Risk of Violence and its Protective Factors Estela Rivero, Ph.D.

November, 2019

The intervention

TOC: If at-risk youth have access to high quality, comprehensive workforce development services that include soft skills and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), then they will be more likely to increase their incomes, build their protective factors against violence, and less likely to become perpetrators of violence.

Goal: Increase employment and protective factors for at-risk youth living in targeted communities.

Selected Performance evaluation questions:

How does the risk of violence change after program completion?

Performance evaluation: Preliminary results

Pre-post survey among beneficiaries 6,499 at baseline 2,541 with an endline

Instrument:

Psycho-emotional protective factors (PTSD, DERS, ARM, CCES) Self-declared violent and non-violent crimes Substance use

How to answer to questions about increase in protective factors and risk changes?

1) Effect of protective factors on risk of violence at baseline

2) Change on risk of violence and protective factors between baseline and endline

3) Create a typology of changes in protective factors

4) Analyze the change in risk of violence in each of the groups identified

What is risk of violence in this evaluation?

Predicted probability of:

• Having been accused of a crime

• In the last 6 months:

• Threatened someone with a weapon or a beating to obtain money

• Badly injured someone

• Stole something

• Sold drugs

Predictors:

• Sociodemographics

• Protective factors

• Nonviolent crimes

• Substance use

Baseline risk of violence

D en si ty

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Pr(Violence)

Non violent Violent

Protective factors? Standardized effects on baseline risk of violence

Protective factor OR

PTSD 1.20 **

Difficulties with emotional regulation

(DERS)

1.34 ***

Resilience (ARM) 0.88 ** Community cohesion (CCES) 0.98 Non violent crimes 6.93 *** Controls

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001

Standardized change on risk and protective factors between baseline and endline

-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

PTSD DERS ARM CCES Non violent crimes

Illegal substances use

RISK

Classification of changes in protective factors

.2 .4

.6 .8

D en si ty

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 Change in PTSD

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

.2

.4 .6

D en si ty

-5 0 5 Change in DERS

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

.2

.4 .6

.8 D en si ty

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 Change in ARM

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

.2

.4 .6

.8 D en si ty

-4 -2 0 2 4 Change in CCES

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Effect on risk of violence, by changes in protective factors

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4C ha ng e in ri sk

15.5%% of beneficiaries 61.6% 11.9% 11.0%

Summing up

Demonstrated effect of protective factors on risk of violence No overall evidence of change in risk of violence Protective factors improved Different patterns of the effects of the intervention on the protective factors The intervention results in changes in the risk of violence only when:

↓ in PTSD and DERS, and ↑ in ARM ↓ risk ↑ in PTSD and DERS, and ↓ in ARM ↑ risk

Conclusions

This methodology allowed us to:

Understand relationship between protective factors and risk Unveil different patterns of results Identify the necessary conditions for the intervention to succeed

Next steps:

Analyze when the program has the expected results

Thank You!

Email: mrivero2@nd.edu

Notre Dame Initiative for Global Development

3150 Jenkins Nanovic Halls, Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA ndigd.nd.edu | (574) 631-8456 | globaldevelopment@nd.edu

13The Notre Dame Initiative for Global Development | ndigd.nd.edu