Barry County Youth Violence Prevention and Intervention Assessment: Final Report
August 13-16, 2001

Introduction and Methodology

Results

Community Awareness and Preparedness Criterion
Communication and Involvement Criterion
Adult Involvement in Children’s Lives and After-school Activities Criterion
Resource Management Criterion
Discussion
Biographical Sketches of Team Members

Coordinated by the Michigan Public Health Institute, the Michigan Department of Community Health, and the Youth Violence Assessment Steering Committee of Barry County

Introduction and Methodology

Youth Violence Assessments (YVA) is modeled after the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) successful assessment designs for Emergency Medical Services and Traffic Records. In the past ten years, NHTSA has conducted this process in nearly all 50 states. Demand has been so great that NHTSA is currently conducting re-assessments in many states. The success of this program was the impetus for adapting it to the context of youth violence.

The YVA process includes three distinct components: (1) detection, (2) resolution, (3) and action. Each of the key components of the process contains several steps and is briefly outlined below.

Team assembly and preparation. A team of youth violence prevention experts implemented the assessment. The team consisted of an educator, a law enforcement officer, a researcher, and a community-level program director. The hosting community sent each team member a pre-assessment guide that provided background information about the community. This information helped the team understand the community and its youth violence prevention needs. The guide included general youth statistics, community geographic and demographic information, youth violence statistics, and anything else the community deemed important.

Community preparation. The hosting community played an important role in the assessment process. In addition to creating the pre-assessment guide for the expert assessors, the community invited informed community members representing various public and private systems to be interviewed by the assessment team. Briefing participants represented a wide range of perspectives in the community, including law enforcement and judicial system experts, educational system experts (e.g., guidance counselors, teachers), public health experts, violence prevention experts, prevention or intervention program directors, social workers, elected officials, faith community representatives, business owners, sports directors, parents, and youth. All community briefing participants were selected and arranged by the community. This was done under the assumption that the community knew who would best be suited to address the assessment criteria.

Community briefing. The assessment itself began with a community briefing phase. During this phase, the team of assessors interviewed briefing participants about their respective areas of expertise in youth violence. The briefing phase consisted of presentations from 65 individuals. Groups of two to four individuals presented in approximately 12, 45-minute sessions over a day-and-a-half. During this time, the assessment team sought information about each of the theoretically derived assessment criteria.

Writing the report. The writing phase began at the conclusion of the briefing phase. Each team member took the information gathered during the briefing phase and wrote, 1) the status of current youth violence prevention efforts and, 2) their recommendations for improvement. This is a consensus report of the team. In other words, team members had to agree upon all content before it was included in this final report.

Reporting to the community. The goal of the process is to gather all necessary information and generate the final report and executive summary by the end of day three. The assessment concludes with a public reading of the executive summary, which highlights the team’s most important recommendations.

This is the most important part of the process. YVA is designed expressly to make the action phase easy. To this end, YVA removes barriers (e.g., money, time delays) and creates a user-friendly report with tangible and feasible recommendations. In addition, YVA can help support your action during this ongoing phase by providing post-assessment financial support in the form of mini-grants (up to $4000).

These three components are the Youth Violence Assessment. Put together, they feature several advantages. First, assessments are designed to be as convenient and inexpensive as possible. The assessment team comes to the host community to conduct the assessment. Further, mini-grants are given to the host community to defray the costs of the assessment. Second, it is innovative. Modeled after several very successful programs conducted by NHTSA, nothing like this been done in the area of youth violence prevention and intervention. Recent independent evaluations indicate that the model is working. Third, assessments take place in a non-threatening environment. The team does not compare one community to another, but rather to several objective criteria. The team determines what the community is doing well, where it could improve, and provides suggestions for improvement or further exploration. Fourth, the assessment provides valuable outside expertise. Four youth violence prevention experts from various fields spend several days learning about a community and its youth violence prevention and intervention efforts. The community will also have access to these experts after the assessment takes place to facilitate understanding and application of the recommendations.

Finally, the written report can serve as an instrument for planning and change. It can help the community prioritize and enhance funding opportunities. This process also provides a useful reference point that will help the community document the need for future improvements.

It should be noted that while a substantial amount of information was provided through the pre-assessment summaries, interviews, and written statements, the assessment team has only begun to learn about the tremendous efforts and commitments of the residents of Barry County. As such, the comments that follow are a reflection of what the team learned through this experience and may not comprehensively depict the efforts that have been undertaken. In no way are these intended to be conclusive recommendations. Rather, they are intended to be used as suggestions of the team generated in an effort to provoke careful consideration as Barry County attempts to develop programs to further enhance the well-being of its youth.

As many community participants noted, engagement in violence-related activities generally co-occurs with other risk-related behaviors (e.g., substance abuse and misuse). This is an important point. Most of the recommendations outlined within this report are specifically aimed at violence prevention initiators in Barry County, but the assessment team strongly encourages members of this initiative to work collaboratively with other youth based programs.

Results

This criterion focuses on perceptions, education, data, and responses to violence. The team examines 1) how accurate are the perceptions of the community concerning youth violence, 2) to what extent are accurate data collected and shared, 3) what educational mechanisms are in place to change misconceptions and/or create accurate ones, and 4) how are minor or major incidences of youth violence treated and existing laws enforced?

Perceptions of Youth Violence

Status. When members of the community were asked about their perceptions of youth violence there was general agreement that Barry County is a safe place to live. A number of comments were made by participants that the low level of violence was a key factor in the decision to move to Barry County. On the other hand, several respondents also noted high rates of incest, domestic violence, stories of teen dating violence/sexual assault, as well as, physical and psychological abuse. Some indicated that most forms of interpersonal violence, notably female-to-female assaults, are prominent and even on the increase. There were multiple reports of informal gang activity but in general gangs were not perceived to be a concern. Persons from organizations that were more likely to have direct contact with youth, such as, victim services, schools, and the criminal justice system were more likely to perceive violence by youth as a problem. This difference was exacerbated by the fact that several community members held varying definitions of youth violence.

1. The Barry County Resource Network (BCRN) needs to develop a common definition of youth violence. Several community members relayed relatively similar views of what youth violence was. There was, however, some amount of disagreement that could prevent consistent treatment of youth violence related events. A common definition should be developed and disseminated to the entire community and concerted efforts must be made to achieve high levels of buy-in from all community members.
1. This is something the Youth Advisory Council (YAC) should be involved in. How youth define youth violence is as important as how adults define it.
2. The team believes that this definition should include all levels of violence along the continuum from low levels (e.g., disrespect, bullying) to the more often reported high levels (e.g., homicide). This includes violence perpetrated both against and by youth.
3. One example of such a definition was developed by the Amherst Wilder Foundation: Violence is when someone intentionally uses actions or words that hurt other people, cause them to live in fear, or destroy property. Violence can be verbal, physical, or sexual. Violence is hitting, kicking, gunfire, it is also name-calling, bullying, or using coercive force. We understand violence as a continuum of disrespect. It is an assault on a person’s sense of integrity, safety, and belonging.
2. The BCRN should produce a gang violence awareness campaign to reduce uncertainty about the prevalence of gang related violence in Barry County. The team heard disparate thoughts about the nature of gang violence. Some thought it was a substantial problem facing the community, while others disagreed. This disagreement likely confounds the effort to detect and reduce gang violence. Therefore, it is important that one group take the lead in resolving this disagreement. Following this, three important steps are recommended. First, an effort must be made to educate residents the true nature of gang violence in Barry County. Second, the collaborative must spearhead a public effort to outline clear values regarding youth violence. Finally, these values must be made known to the public. It should be noted that this is a common theme across several recommendations in this report (see recommendation #2, page 7). The process of establishing and communicating values related to youth violence issues is critical to a healthy community – and in this case, critical to resolving the perception or reality of gang violence in Barry County. In addition, this type of activity will cause Barry County to be proactive about their gang violence problem. Therefore, if gang violence is not a significant problem right now Barry County will be prepared when and if it ever begins to be a problem.

Data Related to Youth Violence

Status. Barry County has an abundance of institutional records that speak to youth violence. For example, there is extensive documentation by the criminal justice system originating at the police departments, continuing at the prosecutor’s office and ending in the court system. There also appears to be the groundwork for an effective system for sharing information among several agencies. For example, the prosecutor’s office, police officers, and school districts share incident information involving students, for the purposes of obtaining appropriate services. Data concerning instances of domestic violence and rape are incomplete. This is perhaps because the youth shelter and safe house, intended to serve Barry County, are located in bordering counties.

1. The BRCN should make a concerted effort to determine the types of data that need to be collected (e.g., prevalence and incidence of types of youth violence) and establish a centralized data clearinghouse to promote the accessibility of the Barry County youth violence-related data. This needs to be a formal process that encourages the sharing of data across agencies and individuals.
2. Barry County must define and address issues related to sexual violence. Overwhelmingly, the most referenced violence problem in the county was sexually related, specifically incest and other forms of rape and sexual assault (often with young sisters and daughters as victims).
1. The team is disturbed by the consistency of reports concerning incest in Barry County. Several different groups from the community (unsolicited from virtually every panel) stated concern about the high number of sexual abuse cases in general and those that involved incest in particular. What is especially problematic is the lack of data to explain this ubiquitous concern. Further, there is no baseline data to compare rates in Barry County with others. To be sure, the pervasiveness of incest is unclear. But the worst thing Barry County could do is nothing. Enacting this recommendation is likely to produce one of two outcomes. First, it may confirm observations and serve as a tool for generating financial resources to combat the problem. Second, it allows you as a county to investigate where these perceptions come from and address the potential underlying problems.
2. Barry County could seek guidance from FIA’s Michigan Domestic Violence and Prevention Treatment Board and/or Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence to begin formulating curricula for incest-related projects.

Education Related to Youth Violence

Status. Lack of education and public awareness may explain the diverse perceptions of youth violence in Barry County. The team heard several conflicting opinions pertaining to the extent and nature of youth violence in Barry County. At this time it appears there are virtually no wide-scale attempts to educate the community at-large of the nature, prevalence and incidence of youth violence in Barry County. Divergent opinions concerning youth violence can be at least partially attributable to the lack of programs designed to educate community members about youth violence in Barry County.

Recommendations

1. The BCRN should continue to expand efforts to educate the community regarding the incidence and prevalence of types of youth violence in Barry County. The team became aware of at least one effort (In-Touch) designed to raise the level of awareness of the resources for Barry County residents. These efforts should be continued and expanded. Community members must be made aware of the true nature of the problem of youth violence in Barry County if one is to expect a coordinated community response to the problem.
2. The BCRN must develop a campaign to establish and disseminate Barry County values as they pertain to youth violence. Barry County is sending inconsistent messages, or no message at all, about their values concerning youth violence. Clear and consistent messages need to be sent that express the values (e.g., being sexually assaulted by a relative is not legal and will not be tolerated in Barry County) of the county. This campaign will empower individuals (victims and secondary victims) to speak up and address those issues in their lives and the lives of others by creating a network of people around them that support their beliefs. Education should occur community-wide and include, parents, youth, professionals, youth-serving organizations (YSO) employees, community leaders, etc. There are several steps to this large undertaking:
1. First, Barry County must establish a common definition of youth violence (see recommendation #1, Community Awareness and Preparedness: Perceptions of Youth Violence, pg. 5).
2. Second, Barry County must determine the types and levels of youth violence in the county (see recommendation #1, Community Awareness and Preparedness: Education Related to Youth Violence, pg. 7).
3. Third, Barry County must take steps to educate the public about the extent of the problem(s).
4. Fourth, Barry County must develop its own set of values regarding youth violence and its consequences for perpetrators.
5. Fifth, Barry County needs to educate the community about these values. Sending a consistent message about how individuals deserve (and do not deserve) to be treated is an important step. Key to this section is the effective relaying of messages through the media. To do this, the County should consider hiring an outside agency to 1) clearly identify key audiences, and 2) select the best media outlets to reach those audiences. The team notes the following:
1. Several individuals said that The Banner newspaper was a good source of local news and was widely read across the county. If this is true, then it could serve as an effective channel for sending out this information.
2. Additionally, there is a local radio station (WBCH) which could be solicited to air this type of information with the community.
3. Another useful media outlet may be school newsletters or other materials.
4. Messages about youth violence may be better received by the community if they are presented with a certain level of formality and if influential people are behind it. In the interests of formalizing the process, a children’s bill of rights could be created (for and with youth), signed by the important leaders in the community and disseminated to everyone in the county.
5. Another way of keeping youth violence at the top of the community’s agenda is to hold regular, county-wide teen violence conferences or forums.
3. Barry County should work to raise public levels of awareness concerning poverty. While it is true that Barry County enjoys a higher standard of living than most counties in Michigan, it is also true that this economic boon has not been countywide. Income disparity exists and needs to be taken seriously in Barry County. The lack of awareness and understanding of poverty issues can lead to and/or perpetuate community unrest, since violence and poverty often co-occur in both youth and adults (e.g.., bullying, in the area, was attributed to economic and/or social status differences). With this in mind, the team heard the following from residents of Barry County:
1. Not enough affordable housing is available for low-income families.
2. Too many children are in need of food and clothing.
3. Developmental day care is either unaffordable or unavailable to low-income families.

Status. Several community members indicated that responses to youth violence and substance abuse offenses are not treated consistently. Youth are being held to different standards. When youth violence is viewed as street fighting or gang violence, the criminal justice system is able to identify and quickly deal with the issue, however, lower levels of youth violence (e.g., bullying) may or may not be dealt with by anyone. Several community members noted multiple reports of incest, harassment/assault and dating violence never responded to by officials. In addition, youth, parents and agencies all reported incidents of violence in the schools that were ignored or went unchecked. Transportation in Barry County is also a problem. Specifically, community members believe the community should provide transportation for both victims and perpetrators to get them to available programs and services. This was believed to be important because many of the people who need help will not get help without assistance. In the long run, this can be harmful to the community.

1. Truancy and substance abuse offenses must be treated consistently by all organizations and agencies within Barry County. Community members indicated that all four ISD’s treat truancy differently, and that youth were being held to different standards at different schools. Again, Barry County must send a consistent message concerning what is acceptable behavior and what is not for youth. This problem seriously undermines any effort to do this.
2. Youth serving organizations in Barry County should explore ways to reduce problems with transportation to necessary services for both perpetrators and victims of youth violence. The team heard several reports that residents of out-county areas had considerable trouble accessing resources that were often centrally located in Hastings or other cities outside of the county. This goal could be accomplished in several ways and the team urges Barry County to consider its own creative ways to make this happen.
1. Two examples include a transportation tax or fee assessed to persons on probation to cover transportation cost of getting them to treatment, and increased collaboration with local business owners or the public transit authorities in the county.
3. Barry County must respond to reported increases in the levels of female initiated violence. Several community members from various organizations and disciplines noted that female-initiated violence, specifically female-on-female violence, is on the increase. What’s more Barry County lacks adequate resources to address this problem. This recommendation should follow a similar detection, education flow process outlined in recommendation #2, Community Awareness and Preparedness: Education (see page 7).
4. Barry County law enforcement must work with the Intermediate School Districts in outlying areas to develop consistent policy for truancy and home visitation where ISD covers youth in other counties. The team heard that in outlying areas, residents of Barry County who attended schools outside of Barry County did not receive equitable treatment for acts of truancy. In other words, home visitations were not being made because these youth were not members of the county in which they attended school. An increase in formal information exchange between law enforcement and judicial systems should help alleviate this problem.
5. Youth need an outlet for seeking assistance after violent events and making effective referrals for themselves or their friends. It was noted that youth need a contact other than 911 to call in the case of an "in between" situation that does not require an immediate intervention by law enforcement. Some youth are intimidated by the idea of calling the police when they are feeling threatened (specifically by a family member) or when a friend may be in danger. A trained mental health intermediary should be made available for youth to contact. This should be an individual that is 1) youth oriented, 2) trustworthy and 3) not legally threatening. This sends a consistent community message about values, or the importance of, reporting deviant behavior and provides youth with a non-invasive means of reporting incidents.
6. The county should investigate opportunities in diversionary programming for youth offenders. The team recommends Barry County agencies incorporate diversionary programs in their responses to violence. This needs to be a countywide, incremental diversion protocol. In other words, diversionary programs must be coordinated across police departments, prosecutors, and the courts. Due to the missing youth detention facilities (see recommendation #3 in Resource Management: Allocation; page 20) this is a particularly important goal that should be pursued immediately.

This criterion pertains to three areas: parents and schools, parents and the community, and between organizations. First, to what extent are parents involved with their child’s school/education? Second, to what extent are parents involved in community activities and organizations? Third, what is the quality, quantity, and form of communication between community organizations (e.g., law enforcement, public health, schools, violence prevention, businesses, and religious organizations)?

Status. The assessment team heard that parental involvement in schools was not satisfactory. In fact, respondents who spoke to this issue consistently reported low levels of involvement. One report noted that parental involvement in parent\teacher conferences was less than 10%. If true, this would be substantially lower than the state average. However, since only one individual reported this and no data exists concerning parental levels of participation, this may not be accurate.

On the positive side, area schools appear to be willing to use parent volunteers within their systems and any level of parental involvement within the school was viewed as beneficial. There was a great desire for alternative ways of getting parents involved as volunteers in the schools. One suggestion was to assign parent mentors to other parents who are new to a school - particularly at the elementary level. This practice may encourage involvement and promote communication and awareness within the new and existing parent group.

Recommendations.

1. Schools should explore options for increasing parental involvement in both parent/teacher conferences and other adult-guided school activities. There are several creative ways that other rural communities have increased parental participation in the lives of children at school. Below is a list of some of these possibilities:
1. Maintain a flexible schedule to make it easier for working parents to attend.
2. Utilize telephone conferencing, or other electronic media, to conduct parent\teacher conferences.
3. Provide transportation to and from the school (especially useful for notably rural, dispersed areas of the county).
4. Provide free childcare during events.
5. Provide incentives for parents to come.
6. Offer food.
7. Offer gift certificates for local retailers.
8. Provide cash rewards.
9. Offer school tax breaks for participating parents.
10. Supply rewards for youth to motivate parents to be involved (perhaps tie-in parent/teacher conferences with youth performance). Focus on positive feedback rather than negative feedback.

Parental Involvement in the Community

Status. There appears to be very little parental involvement in community activities or organizations on a countywide basis. A few parents have organized and administer youth sports leagues within their communities on a limited basis. Respondents noted that most parental involvement in the community involved attending a school athletic event. Information received, however, indicated that a child involved in athletics would slowly see parental participation (as a spectator) decrease as they progressed through middle school into high school. This was perceived as a problem.

Currently, no Parks & Recreation Department exists within the county. Participants agreed that one should be developed. It was indicated that offering athletics and recreational activities through this department must include attempts to involve parents and youth at all levels. Most residents wanted to eliminate the all too common and unsettling practice of using existing youth activities as a baby-sitter.

Not all testimony provided was negative. It was noted that there are several parents who are repeatedly involved in their respective communities. This was a very positive finding and these parents must be rewarded and urged to continue this behavior. However, the same volunteers were completing much of the volunteer work, leading several to feel frustrated or overwhelmed.

When queried, most parent respondents were unaware of the Barry Community Resource Network or its mission. Moreover, these parents expressed interest in being involved with such collaborative community work. Providing parents with a forum (for meeting and discussion) and common direction may empower them to take the steps necessary for increased involvement within their respective communities.

1. The judicial system should explore the feasibility of raising the status of parental involvement in efforts to reduce truancy. Several community residents felt that parents were not pulling their weight in the development of their children. This is an age-old problem that is difficult to correct. However, the following two approaches have been successful in other communities:
1. Raise the accountability of parents. In other words, parents of truant youth would be punished as well as the youth themselves.
2. Another helpful approach is to simply raise the awareness of truancy, and its consequences, among parents.
2. Barry County should increase the presence of family events designed specifically for family building. Seasonal fairs and the Hastings Jamboree were noted as two examples of such family building activities that would provide the opportunity for families to build relationships together and create support networks with other families in the area.

Status. Based on information received from several respondents, representing many fields, most community organizations within the county do not communicate with one another in a consistent, organized fashion. A notable exception to this were some of the efforts between schools, law enforcement agencies and the prosecutor’s office. In order for Barry County to effectively combat youth violence, and reduce or eliminate other deficits, which can affect ‘quality of life’ in a negative way, effective and timely communication between various stakeholders is imperative.

Barry County has the existing infrastructure in place to accomplish this task. The Barry County Resource Network already has many agencies indicated within their collaborative. Additionally, the BCRN seems to be doing some great work. The attendance and work of the BCRN must be commended. There are, however, many agencies, not currently with the Network, which could assist with youth violence reduction and/or elimination initiatives.

1. The Barry County Resource Network (BCRN) needs to redefine its mission, position and role in the community to include youth violence. To date, Barry County lacks a strong, collaborative body to mobilize the community surrounding issues of youth violence. Several individuals noted that the BCRN was in the best position to take the lead on issues of youth violence. The team agrees. The significant influence and membership already within the BCRN put it in a position to initiate further attempts at reducing youth violence.
1. In its efforts to take the lead on youth violence issues, the BCRN should be active in pursuing other groups and individuals that should be collaborating with them. Important groups not currently adequately represented on the BCRN include 4-H, faith-based organizations, and local business owners.
2. The faith-based organizations should develop, or expand an existing, collaborative body whose mission includes reduction of youth violence. This body could have several immediate goals:
1. Develop an inter-organizational body to address issues related to youth violence.
2. Develop a collaborative youth violence prevention program.
3. Pursue membership in the BCRN.
4. Monies to take part in these collaborative and program activities could partly be obtained via contributions from mission money.
3. Barry County must make the reintegration of youth offenders a primary focus in program development and implementation. Community respondents including youth, parents, agency directors, law enforcement representatives, and judicial representatives noted that there is a tendency for troubled youth to be "disowned" by the community after committing violent crimes. This type of "sweep it under the rug" mentality is disturbing and must be addressed and altered community-wide. Youth serving organizations, schools, and the faith-based community, in particular, must re-examine their role in reintegrating perpetrators of violence crimes back into life in Barry County.
4. Barry County must address the lack of child psychology and/or mental health resources below the age of 10. Several respondents noted the county’s inability to respond to the mental health needs of youth. In addition, several Barry County youth indicated that one of the primary negative issues in schools was depressed or mentally ill students.
5. Barry County should make use of non-profit organizations as fiduciaries. More attempts to target non-profits will respond to a problem of scarce funds - noted by many respondents. This effort could serve to stretch dollars further by simply getting it out of government control.
1. This allows government agencies more latitude in directing use of funds specifically for the purchase of materials and equipment, which should create a mutually beneficial environment.

This criterion is designed to address three subordinate categories: adult involvement in children’s lives, youth participation in after-school activities, and variety and effectiveness of youth programs in general and youth violence programs in particular. The first category will focus on the extent that adults/parents are involved in the lives of children outside of school. The second will review the extent that youth are participating in adult-guided after-school activities. Finally, the team will discuss the number of meaningful, theory or research-based, adult-guided activities and the extent that these activities are being evaluated.

Status. Like many other Michigan communities some Barry County families are forced to increase earning power, so both parents work. It is also not uncommon for a single parent to have two or more jobs to supplement family income requirements. Obviously, this severely limits parent’s ability to become involved in the lives of their youth.

Barry County also faces several geographical challenges that make it difficult for parents and youth to access needed services. Public transportation is inadequate in Barry County making it difficult for youth and adults to commute to work without a personal car. Many Barry County residents do not have adequate and reliable transportation, hindering their ability to fully support their children’s curricular and extra-curricular activities. Additionally, as in similar rural-based assessments, the team heard community testimony that affordable childcare is also a challenge.

As noted earlier, the team heard that it was not uncommon for parents to relinquish responsibility to provide care for their children to outside parties. This included, but was not limited to, teachers, coaches, the police, youth pastors, coaches, or no one at all (latchkey kids). Several community members believed this was a determinant of youth violence and needed to be corrected.

Lack of parental involvement in the lives of their youth could be partly attributable to parents simply not being aware of the programs already in place. Several community members suggested the community take steps to inform parents of available activities.

The team heard consistent testimony regarding the decline of active involvement of parents in the lives of their youth. This was evident in the low turnout of parents at school events and parent-teacher conferences. Limited parental enforcement of truancy violations was also indicative of declining parental involvement. While parents do face many time constraints, parental involvement is a necessary component to ensure the healthy development of achieving and self-sustaining Barry County youth.

1. BRCN should develop strategies designed to increase the involvement of parents in the lives of youth outside of school. Parental involvement in the schools was noted as a necessary ingredient to successful youth violence intervention and prevention work.
1. The collaborative should develop a parent-mentoring program. The program should include a database of parents to call for specific types of problems. This would better integrate new and traditionally uninvolved parents into the network or parents who are more involved with youth.
2. The BCRN, YAC, faith-based community, the business community and others should call upon their membership to identify qualified mentors for the Big Brother’s Big Sister’s program.
1. In other areas within the state, business communities have allowed company-sponsored time off to participate in the Big Brothers, Big Sisters. This strategy has been successful when implemented, therefore the team strongly recommends it.
3. The BCRN needs to provide multi-cultural educational experiences for youth. This type of project will serve to foster openness and increased levels of acceptance in youth. It was noted on several occasions that multi-cultural experiences would be helpful, especially for girls since they were reportedly less likely to be adequately supported to travel out of the community and gain multi-cultural experiences.

Status. It was evident that inclusion of youth in the development and administration of youth programming initiatives was a priority among several Barry County youth-serving agencies, schools and other entities. The team did hear reports from some youth that programs such as the Youth Advisory Council were active and effective in encouraging youth participation and leadership. 4H was also mentioned as a highly viable organization serving youth because of its many diverse opportunities for learning and growth. Additionally, Barry County Girl Scouting was mentioned as an organization with a high participation rate. In fact, male youth from Barry County expressed the desire for similar programming efforts for male youth. The team would like to commend Barry County for their work to include youth in developing and implementing programs that affect their lives.

It was reported to the team by several Barry County youth that opportunities for non-school sponsored entertainment were very limited. Repeatedly, participants expressed a desire for family fun adventure complexes and other commercial entertainment complexes to be built in Barry County to stave off the apparent boredom and restlessness felt by many of the County’s youth.

1. Youth should be included in all aspects of the decisions that affect their lives. They should be included in the creation, implementation, and evaluation of programs that are designed to improve their lives. Including youth in the decision processes of programs and services designed to affect their lives is wise. This tactic sends a message that Barry County is attempting to meet youth-reported needs, and will act to increase feelings of efficacy and ownership.
1. The Youth Advisory Council (YAC) should continue (and expand) its relationship with the BCRN.
2. Both adjudicated and non-adjudicated youth should be included on the YAC and the BCRN.
3. The team heard directly from the youth who said that one problem plaguing existing programs is the static nature of them, which is "boring." In response to this, all youth serving programs should continually seek feedback from youth. In this way, youth-serving programs and youth activities can evolve parallel to the needs of youth. In addition, the YAC is an opportunity for sustained involvement over long periods of time.

Variety and Effectiveness

Status. The team was satisfied with the current variety and range of non-profit services for youth and families in Barry County. The Barry County Resource Network has worked very hard to identify and pull together over 30 core agencies and professionals who cater to youth and families.

However, many Barry County youth venture to neighboring areas such as Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and Battle Creek in order to take advantage of and participate in programs that cater to youth. These areas are also magnets for youth seeking adventure by way of shopping centers, and other entertainment venues not available in Barry County.

Barry is perhaps the only county in the country operating a YMCA without its own facilities. Ironically, this was seen as both a limitation and a benefit. Traditional YMCA’s provide communities with swimming pools, gymnasiums and other resources for athletic and community activity. The Barry County YMCA does not have these facilities. In addition, without a centralized location and building the program lacks a local identity in Barry County. Nevertheless, in order to provide services to youth the YMCA partners with other resources to meet its program objectives. This results in services provided through the venues of schools and community buildings as well as interesting collaborative relationships. The advantage is the avoidance of unduplicated services and broad community outreach (removes some transportation barriers).

The team also received reports that some services are available to Barry County residents. The social marketing or outreach of those services to residents is lacking. Many reported feelings of disconnection or disenfranchisement with regard to being made aware of various service offerings.

It was evident through testimony that athletics was a core pass-time for Barry County youth and passive participation by parents and supporters. Youth who did not have strong interest in athletics had more limited choices for their extra-curricular activities.

Lack of adequate and reliable public and personal transportation was reported to be a major hindrance for youth and parents becoming involved in available programs. The public transportation system challenges in Barry County should be addressed and may require additional federal funding.

1. Schools as well as the BCRN and community foundations should identify a wide array of adult-guided activities for youth. These activities should be provided for all youth, with special attention to one area. These activities need to include activities for youth in the middle and marginalized youth. Discussions revealed significant concern for the youth "in-the-middle". These are youth who are not interested in athletics and/or school-based clubs (e.g., debate) but are still looking for something constructive to occupy their time. Marginalized youth are those who have previously gotten into trouble (racial groups are also marginalized populations). This group is generally underserved in Barry County. Therefore, in addition to necessary services for these individuals, Barry County should determine youth entertainment activities for this group.
1. Making programs accessible and desirable to all youth will facilitate this process. In some cases fees for services or activities (e.g., YMCA) may be prohibitive for some. It was also reported, however, that sponsored grants were available to families in need of financial assistance. Therefore, relevant organizations should let the community know about sponsored grants available to children of low-income families.

This criterion taps four major ideas: allocation, efficiency, priority, and balance. First, team members were careful to ask about the extent of resources allocated to youth and youth activities (e.g., human resources, financial, etc.) Second, the team focused on how current resources are being allocated, and whether or not they are being used efficiently. The third criterion is designed to determine the quantity and quality of after school youth activities in general and youth violence prevention and intervention programs in particular, in relation to other community activities. Finally, the team directs questions concerning the balance of primary, secondary, and tertiary violence prevention and intervention activities.

Allocation

Status. The team heard that resources allocated towards violence prevention programming in the public schools, community and youth groups in Barry County is severely limited. Specifically, there is need for programming that addresses bullying, sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Evidently, minimal gang and weapons related violence exists in Barry County schools. Still, other types of violence are pervasive throughout Barry County youth and violence prevention activities for these types of violence are neglected.

Few resources are allocated to breaking the cycle of youth violence (intervention for perpetrators). As a county, there are only a few available mental health services. Further, youth detention and holding facilities and diversion programs at the police, prosecutor, and judicial levels are also limited. In other words, it seems as though little support is provided to prevent further violence from happening.

Victims also suffer a lack of resources. There is no sexual assault crisis center in Barry County. While the YWCA of Kalamazoo may treat residents of Barry County, the geographical distance makes it an inaccessible and impractical solution for rape survivors. Similarly, there is not a shelter for victims of Intimate Partner Violence in Barry County. The Safe House of Battle Creek does serve Barry County residents. But the location makes accessing services a major barrier.

Right now there is a lack of social meeting space for the youth in Barry County. The plans to develop a Community Center with active program development should address this void, at least in part. Both adults and youth indicated that recreational facilities were lacking.

1. Domestic violence services must be provided within the boundaries of Barry County. The team learned that domestic violence victims (and secondary victims) were either not being treated at all, or being sent to Battle Creek for services. Similar to the lack of a sexual assault crisis center, the team believes this is troubling for two reasons. One, this raises issues with transportation and convenience that are difficult for some victims to overcome. Two, this sends a message that Barry County does not perceive domestic violence to be a serious offense, or one worth allocating funds to work against.
2. Barry County must find a way to provide sexual assault services to youth in the community. The lack of sexual assault services effects more than just youth. Therefore this gap in service is important to address. The team strongly recommends the County establishes either a) a satellite office out of the sexual assault crisis provider in Kalamazoo or b) an independent Barry County sexual assault crisis center.
3. Barry County should establish a juvenile holding / detention center and other youth housing facilities (e.g., runaway homes). It was noted that there are very few detention facilities. Apparently what does exist is out of Barry County and extremely limited. This prevents youth from receiving immediate consequences for their actions or receiving immediate crisis accommodations. Another significant problem associated with the lack of this facility is that youth have to be repeat offenders of serious crimes before they are entered into the system and detained. The addition of a juvenile holding/detention center would prevent youth from falling between the cracks of the system. Residents should aggressively pursue funding opportunities for this work.
4. The Big Brother / Big Sister program should have a positive impact on Barry County and should be pursued aggressively. The team heard that Barry County (or the City of Hastings) is still at risk of losing the program by November 15, 2001. The team believes that Barry County could benefit greatly by acting quickly to secure this opportunity. If Barry County is going to pursue this opportunity they must take measures to ensure its success in the rural community. One of the largest problems with Big Brother, Big Sister has been the recruitment of dedicated, caring Big Brother and Sister mentors. There is a proven way to combat this potential problem, however. Business communities of other rural counties within the state have allowed company-sponsored time off to be a Big Brother or Sister. To date, this has been quite successful where implemented. In Barry County, perhaps the Chamber of Commerce and the YMCA could encourage the volunteer base (or see recommendation #2, page 16).
5. Sexual violence prevention programs are needed. These programs should be age appropriate, primary prevention education opportunities. These programs are needed at all ages from early childhood to late adolescence. The Michigan Model contains some components of this type of program that could be used directly or adapted.
6. The new community center building project should be expedited. A new community center is being built in Barry County. Area teens are involved in the process of building the center. This type of effort is commendable and extremely beneficial for youth. The team heard that the Center would not be built in time for those involved to reap the benefits of their involvement. Speeding up this process will serve two goals:
1. Provide a tangible reward to the youth involved.
2. Provide an opportunity for Barry County to publicly celebrate the youth involvement with a great success.

Status. There appears to be some resources allocated to some important after-school and weekend programming specifically for youth such as 4-H, Girl Scouts, church youth groups, and competitive sports. This fact was echoed in several of the panel discussions. However, there appears to be a dearth of programming for non-athletes, middle school aged children and marginalized youth.

There was some mention of restrictive government spending stipulations that inhibited program implementation and that financial resources are extremely limited in Barry County and they get less "bang for the buck" when managed by government agencies. There are also some existing collaborative bodies that address youth violence in Barry County, however, many people in the community are unaware of their existence, functions, roles, and objectives.

1. Primary, Intermediate and Secondary schools in Barry County should develop a collaborative effort to train teachers and school counselors to identify problematic behavioral patterns, and risk factors associated with violent youth. It became apparent to the team that teachers and school counselors could be better trained in youth violence issues in order to target intervention. Intervention resources can be better utilized by the professional development of teachers and school counselors in this area.
2. The BCRN should work to improve and/or expand upon grant writing skills and resources. The team heard several residents indicate that the community was not obtaining the grants they felt they both needed and deserved. The team understands that many factors are involved in the grant submitting and reviewing process. The sole problem probably does not lie in grant writing quality, as much as making sure qualified people are consistently applying for grant monies. Therefore, the BCRN should take steps to make sure that grant writing is a continuous county activity. To do this, the BCRN may seek out external individuals with proposal and grant writing expertise or enact training to improve grant-writing skills of Barry County individuals.

Discussion

This report details specific recommendations derived from a sample of community testimony and materials. In all, 34 recommendations were developed by a team of experts who, based on their own experiences, attempted to mold ideas fit for Barry County. In some cases these recommendations should be easy to implement. In other cases it may be difficult to overcome existing, long-standing community barriers. Regardless, each recommendation is designed to mitigate problems unique to Barry County. As a consulting body, the authors must again stress that this plan must be acted upon to make improvements to the existing structure of youth violence prevention and intervention efforts within Barry County. The goal of the process and the future of youth violence in Barry County is contingent upon this action. To those ends, this report is intended to serve as a catalyst for dialogue that leads to action within and between key groups in the community.

Appendix

SERGEANT JERRY KING
PREVENTION SERVICES SECTION
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE
4000 COLLINS ROAD
P.O. BOX 30634
LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-8134
OFFICE: (517) 336-6549

Jerry King is currently a Uniform Sergeant in the Michigan State Police Department. He spent 10 years as a trooper for the State Police during which time he received the Professional Excellence Award. He has acted as coordinator for the T.E.A.M. School Liaison Program and has a role on the Statewide School Safety Information Policy Creation and Distribution. Sergeant King has been a member of several associations and committees, including, the Michigan Senate S.A.F.E. Schools Task Force, the F.I.A. Advisory Committee on Services to Delinquent Youth, the Michigan Model for Comprehensive School Health Education, and the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence.

RON FOLEY
CONSULTANT
6632 TELEGRAPH ROAD SUITE 347
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
OFFICE: (248) 895-3086
EMAIL: vmgroup@yahoo.com

Ron Foley is a former researcher/coordinator and curriculum designer for the highly regarded Male Responsibility Program (MRP) that operated under a demonstration grant from the U.S. Government Center For Substance Abuse Prevention. CSAP-MRP provided cultural and gender specific programs to at-risk adjudicated and non-adjudicated African-American males in Detroit MI. Foley has researched, written and narrated over 60 audio programs for youth on African/African-American Heritage, Self-Esteem, Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention, Social and Community Responsibility and other topical areas. He is published in the Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Concerns and other publications. Foley designs and implements customized highly engaging and interactive corporate and educational training programs for youth and adults. He has developed technical and non-technical training programs for Daimler Chrylser, UAW National Training Center, Southfield Public School District, Detroit Public School District, The Detroit Pistons and many other entities.

LORI POST
PROGRAM DIRECTOR, CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES
SUITE 27 KELLOGG INSTITUTE
EAST LANSING, MI 48824
OFFICE: (517) 353-6617
FAX: (517) 432-2022
EMAIL: LAPost@msu.edu

Dr. Post is the Director of two programs at MSU's Institute for Children, Youth, and Families: the Violence and Intentional Injury Prevention Program and the Program for Applied Demography and Ecology. Her research focus is on a public health model of violence prevention and the development of new statistical and methodological techniques of measurement. She directed the evaluation of Project SEEK (Services to Empower and Enable Kids) a 10 year longitudinal experiment design aimed at breaking intergenerational violence. Her doctorate and masters are in Demography with a minor in Medical Sociology. Dr. Post's research is funded by the Centers for Disease Control, the Michigan Department of Community Health, Mott Foundation, and the Department of Management and Budget. She also has an appointment in the Sociology Department where she has taught various courses. Dr. Post is on the scientific review and public policy boards for the American Public Health Association and was elected an officer for the International Sociological Association Population Research Committee.