Annual/Termination Reports:

[05/11/2010] [07/15/2011] [07/18/2012] [08/02/2013]

Report Information

Participants

Baker, Barbara (barbara.baker@maine.edu)  Maine Cooperative Extension (Project Secretary);
Blyth, Dale A. (blyth004@umn.edu)  University of Minnesota;
Borden, Lynne (bordenl@cals.arizona.edu)  Arizona Cooperative Extension;
Calvert, Matthew C. (matthew.calvert@ces.uwex.edu)  Wisconsin Cooperative Extension;
Colletti, Joe (colletti@iastate.edu)  Iowa State University (Administrative Advisor);
Chapin, Julie (chapin@msu.edu) - Michigan Cooperative Extension;
Diaz, Lisa Bouillion (lisabou@uiuc.edu)  Illinois Cooperative Extension;
Dotterer, Aryn (dotterer@purdue.edu)  Indiana  Purdue University;
Edwards, Janet (edwardsj@wsu.edu)  Washington Cooperative Extension;
Emery, Mary (memery@iastate.edu)  Iowa State University (Project Co-Chair);
Enfield, Richard (rpenfield@ucdavis.edu) - California Cooperative Extension (Project Chair);
Hall Barczewski, April (adhall@umd.edu)  Maryland Cooperative Extension;
Jones, Kenneth R. (krjone3@uky.edu)  Kentucky Cooperative Extension;
Kinsey, Sharon (kinsey@aesop.rutgers.edu) - New Jersey Cooperative Extension;
LeMenestrel, Suzanne (slemenestrel@nifa.usda.gov) - 4-H National Headquarters (NIFA Representative);
Mead, June P. (jm62@cornell.edu) - New York (Cornell) Cooperative Extension;
Nathaniel, Keith C. (kcnathaniel@ucdavis.edu)  California Cooperative Extension;
Spears, Beverly (ba-spears@tamu.edu)  Texas (Prairie View) Cooperative Extension;
Tallman, Kelli (ktallman@iastate.edu)  Iowa Cooperative Extension;
Webster, Nicole (nsw10@psu.edu)  Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension;
Williams, Bonita (bonita.williams@vt.edu)  Virginia Cooperative Extension;
Zhang, Yaogi (zhangy3@auburn.edu)  Alabama (Auburn) Cooperative Extension

Brief Summary of Minutes

For a full version of the minutes of the annual meeting, go to: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3410612/2010_Feb_Annual_Meeting_%28Long%29_NCERA215.doc
For an abbreviated version of the minutes of the annual meeting, go to: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3410612/2010_Feb_Annual_Meeting_%28short%29_NCERA215.doc



Decisions Made at the Annual Meeting of NCERA215: February 23-25, 2010
Washington, DC
USDA Waterfront Center, Room 1410 C & D

Attendance: Dale Blyth, April Barczewski, Matt Calvert, Sharon Kinsey, Suzanne LeMenestrel, NIFA Representative; Joe Colletti, Administrative Advisor; Beverly Spears, Keith Nathaniel, June Mead, Richard Enfield, Project Chair; Mary Emery, Project Co-Chair; Nicole Webster, and Barbara Baker, Secretary (Bonita Williams joined on Wednesday) Several had weather issues both making travel unavailable or had to depart early to avoid the next storm. (14 of 22 attending 65% attendance)

General Project Discussion:

Research Instruments:

After a review of the constructs of Social Capital, there was a discussion about the research instruments necessary for the project.
§ The survey or questionnaire instrument was discussed and it was decided that Keith, Richard, June, April with Dale making connections to Minnesota researchers would make up the Survey Approach Committee. Keith and Richard will begin the process with a slight revision to the existing survey.
§ The interview instrument was also discussed and the group focused on the Jarrett interview study, along with additional questions that Matt developed several months ago
§ Pilot-testing needs to be done with both instruments.
§ The mapping activity was also fully discussed.

Research Questions:

The group had an excellent discussion regarding the projects three research questions. It was decided that there would be two research questions instead of three, thereby providing a more focused research agenda. The two research questions are:

1. What 4-H Program experiences contribute to the development of youths' social capital?
2. How does the 4-H Program's community involvement impact the development of social capital within the community?

Funding:
There was a discussion on AFRI proposals, and comments from Suzanne, Joe and others. A team will be formed to carefully review the AFRI requests for proposals when they are released to see if there is a fit for NCERA215. Richard and Keith will thoroughly review the forthcoming requests for proposals.

Dale will talk to William T. Grant about their interest in the project.

Nicole will lead the group for a NIH Proposal and Beverly, Mary and Dale and possibly others will work with her.

Need to continue work on the projects budget for the various proposals  what is your level of involvement and amount of salary needed for participation (if any)  Richard would work on this.

A decision was made to develop a proposal to the NCNCRD small grants program for $20,000 for the mapping activity. If funded, the money will be used to convene on the mapping activity topic in July (8 & 9).
" Mary will do the narrative for the proposal.
" Dale will you talk with Scott and Ryan (community people) to connect with raw mapping data and the survey data.
" Julie from Michigan (Matt will contact Julie) and Matt from WI might be the PIs and Dale willing to be PI if needed.
" Maine, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan, Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and possibly Washington, Arizona, Texas and other states. A call for involvement will be emailed to all participating states.
" The mapping activity and associated piloting of the survey/questionnaire and interviews will allow the project to learn from data collection in order to do further work on NIH, NSF, AFRI, and other proposals.

General:

" Some of the projects members will meet at CYFAR in San Francisco in May. There will be a workshop on mapping. We could also meet up at CYFAR to discuss our progress. Possibly meet on Tuesday, May 4, 2010

" Nicole will write responsibilities and roles of a graduate student for the project and post it on ANR Collaborative Tools. Nicole would like to offer a three credit class for summer  independent study  to allow a grad student to help manage the information relating to the project. Might not have a concrete idea of what they would do but we could explore it over time. Richard spends a great deal of time managing the project so would appreciate the assistance. Perhaps help manage the submission of one of the grants doing tasks, such as literature review, collection of bios from group, letters of support, etc.

" There was a discussion about four fundamental questions that all project participants need to ask themselves as the project moves forward:
1. Wheres your passion around this work?
2. What would you like personally to get out of it?
3. What do you need to optimize your participation?
4. What dont you want to be involved in?

§ Dale mentioned that we can look at our group in several ways  we can be a community of interest or a ship going in the same direction. Suzanne said the strength of what youre doing is the common core of constructs that youll be looking at.

" Anyone who doesnt have IRB certification needs to get it by December 31, 2010, with a 2 hour on-line CITI training. Even if you are already certified, you will probably have to complete the new CITI training.

WORK PLAN

Literature Reviews:
All agreed that it was important for literature reviews to be developed for planned and future funding proposals.

Nicole agreed and explained that one of the literature reviews should explore:
" Social capital and protective factors/risky behaviors, with four key elements:
1. Caring adults  and positive adult relationships
2. Community connections
3. Positive peer-to-peer relationships
4. Neighborhood safety zones  schools/afterschool settings
" Essentially, these same elements would comprise a literature review for social capital and positive youth development.

An overall literature review is also needed:
" Then individual pieces for NIH and NSF will be tailored for each grant.

The literature review could be the basis of the white paper.

For the NIH Proposal  Keith can assist Nicole with this review, consisting of:
" Social Capital and protective factors
" Social Capital and risk factors

For a NSF Proposal  the literature review would need information on:
" Qualitative methods
" Participatory research

Logic Models:
All AFRI proposals and many others must include a Logic Model. This area is one that project participants can volunteer to work on for the project.

Additional Project Tasks:

1) Mapping Activity and Reporting (Matt and Mary)  design process and develop training for mapping activity using Adobe Connect  first week in April. The training will be recorded as well.

2) Survey Instrument and Interview (Lisa Diaz (IL) could help with the interview questions) Keith Nathaniel, Richard Enfield, Lisa Bouillon Diaz

3) NCRCD Proposal  put in by Wisconsin and Minnesota  due March 18  this will fund the July convening of the group.
" Plan B: - go forward with piloting process even without money, regional meetings via distance capabilities, such as Ping  has good video quality). Nicole will put information on the Collaborative Tools site about Ping.

4) Send Nicole ideas for what kind of tasks a graduate student could complete to assist with this project  the management of these pieces. She will then compile a list and put on the Collaborative Tools Discussion board.

5) Engaging with Nancy Valentine around the Rural Youth Development Grant Program and Talk with Mary Arnold and Nancy about the mapping activities.  Matt, Barb, and Keith.

6) New Threads on Collaborative Tools:
" Richard - authoring articles (wrote article about co-authoring articles  Enfield and Lee)
" Nicole  Literature Review

REVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE GROUP:

1) OVERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT coordinator/co-coordinator (Richard and Mary)  including spending time looking for resources for the project.

2) RESEARCH/PROPOSALS COORDINATING COMMITTEE
" Literature review
" Instrument design  have a job description for each one
" Survey, interview and mapping
" Analysis

3) GRANTS/FUNDING COMMITTEE
" NCRCRD - more methodological in focus (Matt, Dale, Mary/WIS or MN)
" NIH - more outcome-oriented (Nicole/Penn State)
" NSF  more methodological in focus (Mary)
" AFRI  more outcome-oriented (Richard)
" WT Grant

4) OUTREACH/EXTENSION  sharing of best practices, models

5) PUBLICATIONS/SCHOLARLYACTIVITY
" Article in JOE about the process of putting a multi-state workgroup together/NIMMS
" Article on mapping

6) SUZANNES ROLE IN THE PROJECT
" Can work with our group in a capacity-building mode  assist with meeting space, coordination, etc. Suzanne cannot assist with proposal development for AFRI, for example.

Meeting minutes report ends here.

Accomplishments

Short-term outcomes: We have formed a project group with 17 states involved and are moving forward with our research agenda. We solidified our research questions at the annual meeting.<br /> <br /> Outputs: As a newly formed group we (assigned the Project Number NC_TEMP1177), we organized ourselves in sub-teams, and, according to suggestions by NIMSS, put together a concept paper that included a synopsis of relevant literature. This paper became a proposal from our Multistate Education/Extension and Research Activity to become authorized by NCERA beginning October 2009 to September 30, 2014. The use of Collaborative Tools on the ANR (University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources) internet website was conducive to greater communication and aided in familiarizing new members to our project milestones. A seminar proposal for Galaxy III Conference was submitted by Richard Enfield in 2009. A Major Grants letter of inquiry to W.T. Grant Foundation was submitted by Mary E. Emery, Mary Elizabeth Arnold, Barbara Baker, Lisa Bouillion Diaz, and Richard P. Enfield in July 2009. Although it was not accepted it provided an exercise in teamwork and became a foundation document to build upon for other proposals. Richard Enfield prepared and posted on ANR Collaborative Tools Website the document NCERA215 Project Synopsis 3-1-10.<br /> <br /> Future directions: A white paper will be written about the analysis of data results of our pilot studies using mapping methodology of the seven community capitals and how they interrelate with social capital. <br /> <br /> Activities: Seventeen states have signed on during the first year of being an NCERA project as of March 1 2010. Discussion at four face-to-face meetings, sub-team meetings, and monthly conference calls formulated ideas and further developed concepts of a research objective. Teams designed preliminary research objectives, methodology, protocol specific data, and analysis plans. We reviewed instruments and protocol for pilot studies. The ability to have an annual face to face meeting with guidance from our administrative advisor Joe Colletti and NIFA representative Suzanne LeMenestrel moved our agenda forward and solidified teamwork toward clarified mutual goals. <br /> <br /> Future directions: During our annual meeting, we decided to apply for an NCRCRD (North Central Regional Center for Rural Development) grant to do pilot mapping studies, youth and adult interviews, and surveys in multiple states; then, gather in Wisconsin to analyze the results for publication and use of preliminary results to strengthen applications to potential funders.<br /> <br /> Milestones: We convened project and research teams with 75% attendance on monthly calls and 65% attendance at the yearly meeting (despite severe weather related challenges in February in DC). We completed the application and are authorized by NCERA. Our team identified five possible funding sources (NIH - National Institutes of Health, AFRI - Agricultural and Food Research Initiative, NIS  National Institutes of Science, and W.T. Grant). We submitted proposals to two funding sources (W.T. Grant, and the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development). At our annual meeting, we developed selection criteria for research sites and, soon after, secured initial research sites. We began work on research protocol and began the Institutional Review Board application and approval procedure with the University of Wisconsin leading to the approval of the Mapping Study for the initial piloting institutions.<br />

Publications

None to date

Impact Statements

1. Began synthesis of existing literature on social capital formation that links fields of study on youth development (in and out of school), family resiliency, and community development. Share and collaboratively analyze data to be collected across the land-grant system reside on the Collaborative Tools ANR internet site. Mapping Activity to be presented at the CYFAR Conference May 2010 for use by Rural Youth Development groups involved in the Engaging Youth, Serving Community project sites across the country currently involving 21 states. A network of researchers and educators across the LG system formed, so that impact of these activities will reach rural, suburban, and urban communities. Adopted use of internet communication tools to share and collaboratively analyze data collected across the LG system.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Joe Colletti, Suzanne LeMenestrel; Richard Enfield; Mary Emery; Elaine Johannes; Barb Baker; Lisa Lauxman attended for a short time on Tuesday; Matt Calvert came Wednesday & Thursday;

Note: Brown Bag Seminar on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 with 14 other NIFA & Interagency Working Group on Youth members joining us in person and by phone.

Brief Summary of Minutes

Decisions Made at the Annual Meeting of NCERA215: March 15-17, 2011
Washington, DC
NIFA Headquarters Waterfront Centre, Conference Room 3455 A&B


General Project Discussion:

Research Group Process:
A short discussion of best practices for involving others in the work included Joe's observations that successful multistate projects have members who want to be part of it and they find something they want to get out of it. Projects have value for the team and the team gets value out of them. It is important to be prepared to adapt to slight differences that each state will need.

QSR International NVivo 9 one-hour Introduction to NVivo webinar by Stacy Penna, Cambridge, MA - Could we nest the server DV into ANR Collaborative Tools?

Suzanne and Joe will look into USDA providing server space for multistate projects plus providing the software.

Research Instruments and Research Questions:
We reviewed results from our preliminary mapping pilot research in light of our two research questions:
1) What 4-H Program experiences contribute to the development of youths' social capital?
Activities that seem to foster social capital:
* Work on issues of concern to others & other organizations (bridging)
* Youth decision making/choice/voice
* Activities where youth see themselves and are seen by others as resources
* Co-leading activities w/adults, teaching others
* Community betterment (bonding)
* Organizing & leading community efforts

2) How does the 4-H Program's community involvement impact the development of social capital within the community?
Factors that seem to influence development of social capital:
* Providing assistance to community members in need
* Joining in collaborations or collaborative efforts
* Projects/programs/activities influencing communities natural capital leading to financial capital leading to expanded recreation
* Organizing & leading community efforts
*Membership on boards leading to community betterment

Overall approach to using mapping:
* Engaging young people in reflection
* Using the Community Capitals to map impact
* Great information, difficult to analyze across maps
* Activities that develop bonding social capital are very important to build trust and the capacity to work together
* Activities that develop bridging social capital connect youth to community leaders and resource people
* Often youth feel the most significant change in the community as a result of their work is cultural capital  ways of thinking and doing in regard to youth people

We reviewed progress being made on the triangulation instruments:
Social capital assessment tool
* With youth participating in the mapping activity
* Revised Univ. of Minnesota Extension survey
* Approximately 15 minutes to complete
Social capital interview questions
* With youth participating in the mapping activity

We discussed broader research design, including sample populations:
Joining in collaborations or collaborative efforts

Projects/programs/activities influencing communities natural capital leading to gains in financial capital and leading to increased recreation

Organizing & leading community efforts

Membership on boards leads to community betterment

Approximately 20 states are currently participating

There are approximately 3 million 4-H youth in the participating states.

1862 and 1890 Land Grant Institutions involve

All 4 Regions represented

Social capital assessment tool - Survey
We will collaborate with University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Extension Program on their assessment youth survey tool to the point of developing a valid kid-friendly youth instrument and add questions for adolescents 12-18 years old. They will do the data analysis and report results. Our group has decided they will use these constructs: Bonding Engagement; Bridging Engagement; Linking Engagement; Bonding Networks; Linking Trust.

Decided to discuss topics: At the end of the revision will the copyright be held by MN or with us because we invested our time or altered it substantially? Time frame and quantity needs to be fully discussed.

**UNIT OF ANALYSIS is the club - FINAL DECISION
We will use a Stratified Random Sample -diverse clubs with 2 youth interviews selected by community. A report about the diversity of youth will be in our survey.

We may use a survey demographics model at back of the survey where researchers say they are more likely to be answered (provided by Suzanne). Joe suggested giving another group the survey as a control (schools).

We may use Mary's 2x2 model to find the type of club that is more likely to build social capital for data collection.
Positive Bridging - High Community Involvement Negative Bridging - Low Community Involvement
High Positive Bonding Community Connection Focused interest
Low Positive Bonding Connect to individual projects Fragmented

Surveys get incredible and meaningful information about connections they had made and what happened as a result. We will use NVivo to find themes and will give them the survey and do mapping at the same time.

Adult stakeholder surveys - confirm impact.

Youth Survey from MN: Currently according to Scott, they are for 9th - 12th grade we want them to be flexible with ages - must add - 8th or below and beyond 12th .

Social capital assessment tool - Interview Questions - Triangulation:
Suzanne stated, triangulation is important for mixed method approach. Include the adults as the bridgers as well as the being-bridged-to. We will go back to maps to find out whom to interview: Rotary, Elks, Kiwanis, City Council, Parks and Recreation to see impacts. Have a list to pull from with roles i.e. Council, Civic, etc. One-on-one can probe to a deeper level. Common themes across the small rural interviews and urban communities, you would get a good understanding of the process.

We do not all have to do the same things.

At least four interviews per state or if getting same data, then less is ok.

Make sure interviewer is trained and consistent. (This next part was not clearly decided :) If it is important do 4 in each cell (urban, rural, and suburban) for the entire nation IF it matters with 2 youth interviews selected by community. With interviewing, code the surveys and go back to code to find out demographic & cell information.

We should do a pilot study first, to tease out information.

Funding:
We discussed several efforts underway to secure funding:
GRANTS Who Due Other
Kellogg Mary
NIH  Richard will follow-up with Nicole; Suzanne gets info.
UCANR Keith and Richard May 1
Stuart CA/WA Keith and Richard, Janet Edwards
Kansas Health Foundation Elaine August
Spencer Mtg. at CYFAR Ap. 29
WT Grant  Contacts by Suzanne Intro program officers
Robert Wood Johnson Intro (by Suzanne)
National 4-H Council Making a Pitch Soon Webinar/Training
NCRCRD North Central Regional Center on Rural Development.  We know some things as a result of the research mapping pilot, here are some things that happened Elaine came to group; Steve Henness group; 4-H and Com teams  stimulated conversation Survey to members (Nancy Erbstein) Barb/Roger; Matt talking to someone takes time, can do by phone/email TASK**

General:
We discussed progress and proposals for disseminating results:
PUBLICATIONS/who Purpose Audience Other
*1 New Directions Publication Suzanne will co-author Roll Out national survey Youth Development Outline NOW
2012 or later
1 " CD Practice Article Barb Baker, Mary Emery, Matt
" Elaine (read on plane) to Barb Mary & Matt for changes by March 31 How to
Mapping Tool Community Dev folks For July issue Changes made by April 15. She will look at the instructions
2 White Paper Matt, Mary, & Elaine Deliverable for NCNCRD 6/30 General youth civic engagement (CIRCLE or Tufts )
3 JOE Sharon & Keith, Elaine mapping = strategy or reflection Results Extension
4 Journal of Youth Development Barb mapping process Elaine around health. Steve July/Nov Impact; Research strategy; youth-driven 4-H/YD, conceptual framework; Case study vulnerable populations
5
*1 New Directions Publication series of smaller articles Invite authors, roll out project Youth Development Outline NOW
6 Webinar presentation, with writing possibilities Visibility State 4-H/CD Program Directors 75 seats
Be mindful of authorship issues in teams See Richard's article revisit authorship. Webinar Citation: Authors in Alphabetical Order (Moved team along; graphics)

WORK PLAN

Literature Reviews:
" Good research on the impact of engagement on youth's social capital
" Little research on elements of programming that encourage the development of social capital
" Lots of confusion in the literature about social capital - attribute of individuals vs part of the social structure. Most research on youth and social capital is informed by the individual approach.
" Very little research on youth engagement and the social structure
" Enormous difficulties in linking youth engagement to community social capital either amalgamation of individual attributes or impact on social structure
" Need to tease out the elements that link to social capital versus program focus
" Funders are interested in quantitative designs
" Successful youth development efforts involve participating in and contributing to the wider community
" Recent research on successful community change and sustainable community development identifies youth engagement as a critical element in the process

Logic Model (Theory of Change - Mary):
Input:
Youth/Adult partnerships
Identified Community Issues
Activity:
Kid focused projects
-i.e. park/team Short-term: Bonding - interest leads to education to apply
- Individual agency
- Collective agency Short-term:
Bridging (or dormant)
Make use of capitals Mid-term: Impact policy system Long term:
Social study and individual
Community - Capitals

What starts What moves it along Types of projects & activities What do for adults & community? (Argument = community is better because kids are involved)

Additional Project Tasks:

Project Timeline & Assignments for next 12 months:
Ready by WHAT Steps WHO Finished product
ASAP Who owns the results MOU for IRB each state own all results? Amy will help with the results MOU - One month BEFORE May/June
Spring Survey Validation w/IRB from CA copy to KS, ME & WI. Need 300 15 min w/grades 9th to 12th Elaine and Richard will sample KS, ME & WI Survey Validation by June publish and help with funding.
Fall Single State Pilot go thru whole process-rural, urban, & suburban CA will do it looking for the money Pilot Results
CONFERENCES/PRESENTATIONS
AEA  early November
Anaheim CA - teaching actual mapping process - skill building category; Suzanne, Keith, Mary, Barb kcnathaniel@ucdavis.edu.
Due Friday Mar 18 send to Suzanne, she will apply (Early November)
NECV Idaho Barb April 18-21
CYFAR DoD Barb Richard, Matt Mary April 27-29
Urban Extension Conference Sharon workshop/poster May
Community Dev Conf in Boise Mary (panel spot?) July 28-30 (Steve?)
SRA Society for Research on Adolescents civic engagement Matt July call for papers 2012 Mar/April

REVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE GROUP:

1) OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT- coordinator/co-coordinator (Richard and Mary) including spending time looking for resources for the project. (Barb Secretary)
a. Review NIMSS members who is active in our group and how to keep people involved?

2) RESEARCH/PROPOSALS COORDINATING COMMITTEE
a. Literature review
b. Instrument design - have a job description for each one
c. Survey, interview and mapping
d. Analysis

3) GRANTS/FUNDING COMMITTEE
a. NCRCRD - more methodological in focus (Matt, Mary-completed w/Wisconsin)
b. NIH - more outcome-oriented (Nicole/Penn State)
c. NSF - more methodological in focus (Mary)
d. See chart for additional funding

4) OUTREACH/EXTENSION
a. Sharing of best practices, models

5) PUBLICATIONS/SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY
a. Article in JOE about the process of putting a multi-state workgroup together/NIMMS
b. Article on mapping and presentations (see chart)

6) SUZANNE'S ROLE IN THE PROJECT
a. Can work with our group in a capacity-building mode - assist with meeting space, coordination, etc.
b. Suzanne cannot assist with proposal development for AFRI, for example.

Accomplishments

Accomplishments: <br /> <br /> Short-term outcomes:<br /> " Mapping Pilot  NCNCRD funding secured, pilot mapping projects completed, analysis by group in Madison, Wisconsin July 2011.<br /> <br /> Outputs: <br /> " Webinar  How to do mapping<br /> " Presentations  See chart<br /> <br /> Future directions: <br /> " Review NIMSS members  who is active in our group and how to keep people involved? <br /> " Prepare a paragraph or two about expectations to see who is committed and for what phase?<br /> " Show people whats in it for them and be part of the team. <br /> " Richard will decide the minimum common core of data elements needed across states in order to do analysis based on the numbers of clubs; communities; etc. Richard will work on this and get it out to those around the table.<br /> NUMBERS for Research Youth Surveys - REEIS<br /> State State Totals Surveys Needed<br /> Kansas 69,000 345<br /> Maryland 47,509 <br /> California - 1,009<br /> Illinois 300,000 <br /> Maine 30,000 <br /> Broader research design, including sample population(s) <br /> " Reasonable number: # Proportional to youth in the states. Variables of interest: urban rural, type of club, ethnicity, service-learning, average age of members, intensity and duration (matrix), <br /> " If scores are high where youth who do maps are present, then, we know something about whether we the activities/strategies are related to building social capital.<br /> " Need 10 more maps to test. If nothing new shows up, then any maps that move forward would be linked to the survey. <br /> " We need the directions to be completed and used by 10 people who didnt do the mapping to do the mapping  here is a methodology that kids need to celebrate and USDA can collect data for what they need. Then, roll the mapping out as part of our research design. <br /> " Make guide for how to do it. Process for going through this had meaning in itself. At same time put data into national system to report. Mapping can be stand-alone activity.<br /> " Adding a purpose to the survey. Create comparisons between high involvement clubs and low involvement clubs. Ask as observer in the community to evaluate involvement.<br /> " 6 sites (non - community) " 6 sites (yes - community)<br /> " 250 surveys " 250 surveys<br /> " 10 Youth interviews " 10 Youth interviews<br /> " 10 Adult interviews  community stakeholders " 10 Adult interviews<br /> <br /> Activities: <br /> " We are planning a webinar for state 4-H program leaders and Community Development program leaders, pulling people together to connect the dots. RYD (Rural Youth Development) group has opportunity to learn about community capitals and is laying out measurements for social capital.<br /> Future directions: <br /> " Count the assets and the capitals to analyze the trajectory that leads toward social capital. Move from evidence-based programming toward evidence-based strategies. <br /> " Survey Validation Pilot  get 350 kids to fill it out to see if constructs still hold up. Nancy Erbstein (and Katherine from California) will do cognitive testing before survey is ready. Single State Pilot  choose one state and go through whole process  selection of clubs in rural, urban, and suburban. Package for this process that our team can use across the states.<br /> " Challenge our methodology. Run up against explicit or implicit bias. Pull for the qualitative and quantitative. <br /> <br /> Milestones: We convened project and research teams with over 75% attendance on monthly calls and 55% attendance at the yearly meeting (counting the core team of movers and shakers). We completed the application and are authorized by NCERA. Our team identified five possible funding sources (NIH - National Institutes of Health, AFRI - Agricultural and Food Research Initiative, NIS  National Institutes of Science, and W.T. Grant). We submitted proposals to two funding sources (W.T. Grant, and the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development). At our annual meeting, we developed selection criteria for research sites and, finalized plans for research instruments. We completed work on research protocol and completed the Institutional Review Board application and approval procedure with the University of Wisconsin leading to the approval of the Mapping Study for the initial piloting institutions. We collaborated with University of Minnesotas Humphrey School of Public Affairs on re-purposing a Youth Survey.<br />

Publications

Baker, B., Calvert, M., Emery, M., Enfield, R., Kinsey S., (listed alphabetically) (April 2011). Capturing Positive Youth Contributions Using the Community Capitals Framework. Workshop presented at 2011 DoD/USDA Family Resilience Conference, Chicago, IL. Published in conference proceedings http://www1.cyfernet.org/FRConf2011/ws/2011-Baker-Capturing.pdf<br /> <br /> Baker, B., M. Calvert, M. Emery, R. Enfield. (listed alphabetically) (March 2011). Contribution of 4 H Participation to the Development of Social Capital: What Are We Learning? Brownbag Seminar presented at NIFA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. <br /> <br /> Baker, B., M. Calvert, M. Emery, R. Enfield, B. Williams. (listed alphabetically) (December 2010)Mapping the Impact of Youth on Community Development Webinar. NCRCRD North Central Regional Center on Rural Development. http://breeze.msu.edu/p72418074/<br />

Impact Statements

1. " The annual report documents research and outreach activities for the second year. We completed a synthesis of existing literature on social capital formation that links fields of study on youth development (in and out of school), family resiliency, and community development. This review and other documents to share and collaboratively analyze data to be collected across the land-grant system reside on the University of California Collaborative Tools ANR Internet site. The Mapping Activity was presented at the CYFAR Conference May 2010 and in March 2011 for use by Rural Youth Development groups involved in the Engaging Youth, Serving Community project sites across the country currently involving 21 states. " A core team has formed from a network of researchers and educators across the land-grant system, so that the impact of these activities will reach rural, suburban, and urban communities.
2. " We have made progress building around a solid idea integrating research and extension. " We have gotten new people involved who see their fit into the core nucleus. We need a larger core because theres a lot on anyones shoulders. " Adopted use of Internet communication tools to share and collaboratively analyze data collected across the land-grant system.
3. " State and NCRCRD funding supported a September 2011 meeting in Minneapolis at the University of Minnesota to discuss the Social Capital Youth Assessment/survey developed by the University of Minnesota and the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. " Participants acquired NCRCRD funding for pilot testing the mapping activity and attending a Working Meeting in Madison, WI in July 2011. " State and local financial support was acquired by participants for getting to the Annual Meeting in Washington DC. " Completion of an annual project report documenting research and outreach activities for the second year of becoming a NCERA program. " A critical agreement was reached with the University of Minnesota Extension and the Humphrey School of Public Affairs on a partnership for revision, use and analysis of the Social Capital Youth Assessment/survey.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

Please see attached "Copy of Minutes" file below for full 2011-2012 annual report.

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top