gate saturday school-parent contact and release form

Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Collaborative Partnership
Richmond County (Augusta, GA)
Prepared by:
Messages of Empowerment Productions, LLC
Submitted to:
The Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COMPREHENSIVE
REPORT
-1-
RICHMOND COUNTY COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATIONS
 Augusta Mini Theater
 Augusta State University
 Department of Juvenile Justice
 East Central Public Health District
 Fort Gordon Youth Challenge Academy
 Jones Behavioral Health
 Kids Restart, Inc.
 New Bethlehem Community Center
 Planned Parenthood
 Rape Crisis & Sexual Assault Services
 Richmond County Juvenile Court
CLINICAL PARTNERS
 Georgia Health Sciences University
 Planned Parenthood
 Richmond County Health Department - Laney Walker site
 Richmond County Health Department - South Augusta site
 Asociacion Latina de Servicios del CSRA (Alas)
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Acknowledgement of Community Researchers
4
Overview of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative
5
Overview of the Community Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report
6
Community Needs Assessment Methodology
7
Results
15
Youth Survey Results
15
Caregiver Survey Results
42
Faith Community Survey Results
64
Business Survey Results
73
Public Official Survey Results
80
Clinical Provider Survey Results
93
Pharmacy Survey Results
122
Youth-Serving Organizations
126
-3-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COMMUNITY RESEARCHERS
The evaluators thank the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention for their generous funding of this
initiative, as well as the G-CAPP program staff for their continued support of the community needs
assessment efforts. We are especially grateful to the following professional and community
researchers whose diligence during the data collection process and dedication to adhering to specific
research protocols helped make this project a success:
Bria Shipman-Riley
Capus Barnett
Carol Hunter
Casey Sanford
Cristine Brinson
Davlyn Hollie
Daniela Whitaker
Dr. Charlotte Price
Eula Chestnut
GeorgeAnne Caden
Janice Weeks
Katie Crow
Keenan McCorkle
Kimberly Hayes
Lawrence Yarbrough
Lynda Thomas
Mary Chestnut
Nicole Williams
Olivia Pontoo
Remelda Hughes
Shaquan Jenkins
Shauntia Dyson
Tabatha Tutt
Yana Parkhomenko
Finally, we offer a very special thanks to all the Richmond County residents who graciously
participated in the community needs assessment. Because of their cooperation, the evaluation team
was able to amass valuable data on the need for comprehensive sex education in the community.
Messages of Empowerment Productions, LLC thanks these key stakeholders, without which the
community needs assessment would not have possible. We fully believe that the combined efforts of
our team and your community will make an impact on teen pregnancy in Richmond County.
-4-
OVERVIEW OF THE TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION
INITIATIVE
With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Georgia Campaign for
Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (G-CAPP) is working with 11 youth serving organizations and
five reproductive health clinics in Richmond County, Georgia to implement a community-wide teen
pregnancy prevention initiative. The initiative’s major aim is to reduce the number of teen births in
Richmond County by 10% by 2015. This five-year initiative will reach over 16,000 youth between
ages 15 to 19.
Richmond County has a teen birth rate of 71.2 per 1,000 girls ages 15 to19 and equally troubling STI
rates. G-CAPP will use Muscogee County as the comparison county to evaluate the effectiveness of
the intervention.
G-CAPP and its partners will use four strategies to reduce teen pregnancy:
1.
Implement evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs in the community
2.
Provide teens with access to quality health services
3.
Provide stakeholder education to increase support of evidence-based teen pregnancy
prevention strategies
4.
Improve the sustainability of the initiative and partner organizations
Through this unified, community-based initiative, young people will have access to evidence-based
teen pregnancy prevention programs and clinical services, community policymakers will adopt
strategies to support adolescent sexual and reproductive health, and state and local funders will be
encouraged to support this community-initiative and others similar to it.
-5-
OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
The community needs assessment Comprehensive Report details the results of Messages of
Empowerment Productions’ survey efforts in the Richmond County community. The assessment
team administered a series of surveys to various individuals and groups within the community in order
to determine the community’s pregnancy prevention needs and collect data to use in implementing
teen pregnancy prevention programs in Richmond County.
This report begins with a summary of the methods employed in conducting the needs assessment.
The methodology section includes the purpose and goals of the assessment, the training and
monitoring process through which adult and youth researchers were recruited from the Richmond
County community and assisted in administering surveys to their fellow community members, and the
process through which survey data was collected, managed, analyzed, and reported throughout the
duration of the assessment.
The remainder of the report details the assessment results of seven priority populations surveyed:
youth, caregivers, faith communities, businesses, public officials/policy makers, clinical service
providers, and pharmacies. In a separate section for each individual group, the report describes the
priority population and provides the purpose, the population-specific assessment methods and survey
administration processes, and the detailed, graphically organized results of the survey. It is important
to note that each survey instrument was adapted specifically to accommodate the priority populations’
unique circumstances, so each section of this report, while providing the same general information for
all populations, reflects the specifically designed methods and processes that were developed for
each priority population.
-6-
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Methodology
-7-
OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PURPOSE: The community needs assessment was a necessary first step in planning for an evidencebased intervention to reduce teen pregnancy in Richmond County. The purpose of the assessment
was to better understand the community’s knowledge about teen pregnancy prevention, attitudes
towards evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, engagement in behaviors that place
young people at greater risk for teen pregnancy, and use of programs and strategies that address
teen pregnancy.
GOALS: The community needs assessment was undertaken to better understand community
members’ perspectives on the status of teen pregnancy and prevention efforts in their community. To
that aim, surveys were developed to obtain various community members’ perspectives on prevention
efforts in Richmond County, challenges healthcare providers face in providing services, challenges
young people face in accessing services, and organizations’ ability and willingness to adjust services
provided to meet the needs of the Richmond County community.
G-CAPP and its collaborating partners are currently finalizing the procedures for implementing the
teen pregnancy prevention intervention in Richmond County. In order to implement the proposed
programs, this community needs assessment will provide G-CAPP and its partners with a better
understanding of community members’ perspectives on the status of teen pregnancy in Richmond
County.
METHODOLOGY: The community needs assessment team adapted the “resident research” approach,
a proven methodology developed by Philliber Research Associates specifically for community-based
research. The hallmark of this approach is its involvement of community members in the data
collection process. G-CAPP contracted Messages of Empowerment Productions to recruit and train a
team of Richmond County residents to survey their fellow community members. Specifically, the
community researchers helped administer the survey to caregivers and teens, youth-serving
agencies, schools, faith communities, businesses, policy makers, and health clinics. They also
assisted in reviewing existing data sources to get a complete picture of teen pregnancy prevention
assets and needs in the community, the services already provided to area teens, and the challenges
teens face in accessing those services.
-8-
The research team administered thirty-minute surveys to a diverse cross-section of the Richmond
County community, including residents from the cities of Augusta, Hephzibah, and Blythe. Surveys
were administered either face-to-face or by phone interview to twenty to thirty community members
per priority population. Data was collected from April 4, 2011 to October 14, 2011.
To ensure rigor and streamline data collection, the research team conducted the assessment in three
waves. For each wave, the research team employed unique data collection methods, research
management plans, and survey monitoring processes specifically developed for the priority
population:
WAVE 1: Teens and caregivers (April 3, 2011 – June 4, 2011)
WAVE 2: Faith communities, businesses, and policy makers (May 9, 2011 –
August 22, 2011)
WAVE 3: Youth-serving organizations, health clinics, and pharmacists
(August 22, 2011 – November 9, 2011)
The community needs assessment team designed this staggered data collection method intentionally
in order to prioritize the target populations surveyed. The assessments began at the “individual” level
with the population most closely affected by teen pregnancy in the community (i.e., teens themselves
and their caregivers). The team then moved to the “community level,” addressing the specific groups
that have a stake in teen pregnancy (i.e., faith communities, business communities, and policy
makers). The final wave collected data at the “organization level” and included entities that provide
social and health services to youth within the community (i.e., youth-serving organizations, health
clinics, and pharmacies).
It is necessary to note that although Hispanic residents account for only 2% of the Richmond County
population, Hispanic communities account for a disproportionate number of teen pregnancies.
Assessing the unique issues surrounding teen pregnancy in these communities can be challenging
due to language barriers, so the evaluation team anticipated a need for additional resources in
collecting data on Hispanic community members’ culturally-specific knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors regarding teen pregnancy. The team identified and solicited the help of Spanish-speaking
researchers and translated both the teen and caregiver survey tools into Spanish; however, since the
Spanish-speaking researchers were not always readily available, very little data were collected from
Richmond County’s Hispanic communities.
-9-
The following table provides a visual illustration of the data collected from each priority population and
the staggered approach used to obtain the data:
INSTRUMENT
DATA COLLECTOR (S )
PAYMENT TO
DATA
COLLECTORS
PAYMENT FOR
RESPONDENTS
TARGET
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
TIMEFRAME
The Teen Survey
Youth Community
Researchers
$10.00 /
survey
collected
$10.00
400 youth
April 3 – June 4
The Caregiver
Survey
Adult Community
Researchers
$10.00 /
survey
collected
$10.00
400 caregivers
April 3 – June 4
The Faith
Community Survey
Professional
Researcher
Completion
stipend: $250
$10.00
20
May 9 – May 27
The Business
Community Survey
Professional
Researchers
Completion
stipend: $250
$10.00
20
May 9 – May 27
The Policy Makers
Survey
Research Team
$0
$0
5
May 15 – June
10
5 partner &
5 non-partner
agencies
August 30 –
September 13
10 partner &
10 non-partner
agencies
September 27 –
November 9
5
August 22 –
September 2
The Family
Planning/Clinical
Services Provider
Survey
The Community
Agency Survey
The Pharmacy
Survey
Research Team
$0
Research Team
$0
Research Team
$0
$0 – included
in MOU –
issued by GCAPP
$0 – included
in MOU –
issued by GCAPP
$0
- 10 -
THE TRAINING AND MONITORING PROCESS
RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, AND TRAINING OF COMMUNITY AND PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS
COMMUNITY
RESEARCHERS were needed to collect data from teens and adult caregivers within the
community. To recruit participants, nomination forms and job descriptions for youth and adult
community researchers were disseminated throughout the community. Flyers were also strategically
posted at locations frequented by teens. Candidates with completed applications, including an essay,
were selected first, followed by those without essays. Training for all community researchers
consisted of a one-day session, held on March 19, 2011 from 8:00am to 3:30pm at the Richmond
County Health Department Training Room in Augusta, GA. Youth and adult community researchers
were trained together.
PROFESSIONAL
RESEARCHERS
were needed to collect data among businesses and faith
communities. To recruit researchers, nomination forms and job descriptions for professional
researchers were disseminated throughout the community. Candidates were nominated by members
of the core partner group for the initiative and selected based on prior data collection experience.
Training for all professional researchers consisted of a half-day session, held on April 19, 2011 from
12:00pm to 4:00pm at the Richmond County Health Department Training Room in Augusta, GA.
During training, community and professional researchers learned about the community needs
assessment, the researcher’s role in data collection, and their responsibilities as subcontractors for
the collaborative partnership. Each researcher also received a bound manual which included a
detailed description of data collection and administrative procedures, necessary researcher/subcontractor employment documents, a prospective interviewee log, and a training feedback form. The
manual also included a participant packet folder consisting of a participant packet checklist, two
consent forms, a pre- and post-interview field notes form, a demographic profile sheet, a survey tool,
an incident report, and a weekly communication log. Along with the researcher manuals, Messages of
Empowerment prepared toolkits for the researchers that consisted of a document carrying case with
at least 10 copies of all documents in the participant packet. The researchers were able to practice
survey administration on one another, in addition to follow-up survey administration practice with an
experienced member of the needs assessment team both in-person and over the phone.
- 11 -
OVERVIEW OF THE DATA COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT,
ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING PROCESS
DATA COLLECTION
Youth and adult community researchers identified and recruited participants from their priority
populations. Youth were divided into five sub-groups based on school status:
1) Youth who attended school regularly
2) Youth who did not attend school regularly
3) Youth who obtained their education at an alternative education program
4) Youth who were associated with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
5) Youth who were associated with the foster care system
Caregivers were also divided into five sub-groups:
1) Parent(s)/guardian(s)
2) Extended family members or friends serving as caregivers
3) Foster parents
4) Parents of youth associated with the DJJ
5) Hispanic caregivers
Each community researcher was responsible for identifying and interviewing twenty participants who
met eligibility criteria. In the event that researchers were not able to gain access to twenty individuals,
the needs assessment team contacted youth-serving community agencies that provide services or
support to the subgroups identified, which then served as referral sources and data collection sites.
When a community member agreed to participate in the assessment as a survey respondent, they
were asked to review and sign an informed consent document, after which the community researcher
completed the demographic profile sheet and administered the survey.
Professional researchers assigned to businesses were given three different subgroups to target,
based on the type of establishment:
1) Entertainment businesses (i.e., bowling alleys, skating rinks, movie theaters)
2) Fast food restaurants
3) Shopping mall stores
- 12 -
Each researcher was responsible for surveying representatives from eight businesses within their
subgroup.
Researchers assigned to faith communities were provided with a list of 30 target churches to ensure
that various faith communities were included in the assessment. Researchers assigned to this priority
population divided the list among themselves and recruited faith leaders as such.
RESEARCHER MONITORING AND ASSISTANCE
To ensure that community and professional researchers met their weekly recruitment goals, the
Messages of Empowerment Productions’ research team retrieved data from researchers every
Thursday during the data collection period. Researchers were asked to meet the assessment team at
New Bethlehem Community Center during the hours of 3pm and 7pm to drop off their data. While the
researcher was present, the assessment team reviewed all data submitted to ensure completion. All
data were transported to the Messages of Empowerment Productions’ office within the same day. All
files were kept in the needs assessment manager’s office in a locked cabinet labeled “CDC.” The data
manger retrieved the files for data entry and completion of status reports on the following business
day.
The community needs assessment team also provided technical assistance to community and
professional researchers through the use of a telephone helpline, e-mail correspondence, or weekly
conference calls.
Conference calls were held with community researchers every Sunday from
7:00pm to 8:00pm (youth) and 8:00pm to 9:00pm (adults) and with professional researchers every
Monday from 7:30pm to 8:30pm. Conference calls were used to discuss successful data collection
strategies, to provide updates, and to address any issues or concerns.
DATA STORAGE IN RICHMOND COUNTY
Community and professional researchers kept completed survey packets inside their toolkits until
Thursday, when completed packets were submitted. These toolkits were securely stored and
restricted from public access. Confidentiality was emphasized during researcher training as a
responsibility of community and professional researchers; this information was also detailed in
researcher manuals.
- 13 -
DATA TRANSPORT FROM RICHMOND COUNTY TO ATLANTA
Data were transported from Richmond County to Atlanta in a locked briefcase within the trunk of the
needs assessment manager’s car. Data were placed in the locked cabinet immediately upon arrival
in Atlanta.
DATA CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY PROCEDURES
Respondent consent forms detailed the confidentiality of data collected by community and
professional researchers. The surveys were kept confidential, and there will be no names provided in
the assessment results reports. Additional measures to ensure confidentiality were employed when
surveying teens within the DJJ and foster care systems. Their names were not collected; instead, the
research team worked with staff overseeing these populations to develop ways to uniquely identify
them. The DJJ youth consent forms remained within respondents’ files at the detention center. All
data collected remained confidential after arrival in Atlanta. Files were stored in a locked file drawer
within a secured office space. Data entered into the local database were saved in a sub-folder of the
Messages of Empowerment Productions’ shared drive that was only accessed by the community
needs assessment team.
DATA MANAGEMENT AND ENTRY PROTOCOLS
Data entry began on Thursday, May 12, 2011, and continued on a weekly basis. The data entry
process was managed by the evaluation coordinator.
ERRORS/PROBLEMS WITH DATA
Quality assurance of data was performed primarily by the evaluation coordinator. She employed
various inquiries to verify validity, including descriptive data analysis to generate a report for each
survey question. This process was performed weekly.
SPSS DATABASE SYSTEM AND CODE BOOK
An SPSS database was built for each survey. All databases were stored on the password-protected
Messages of Empowerment Productions’ shared drive. Code books that followed the layout of each
database were developed for all surveys.
- 14 -
YOUTH SURVEY
Results
- 15 -
YOUTH SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
YOUTH SURVEY DATA COLLECTION METHODS
PURPOSE AND GOALS
The purpose of the youth community assessment survey was provide an understanding of Richmond
County youths’ knowledge, beliefs, and opinions about several factors that affect adolescents’ access
to and comfort with health services available in the community. The survey asked questions about
issues teens face today, like dropping out of school, gangs, drug and alcohol use, and teen
pregnancy. The survey also asked about whether sex education is offered in schools and where
teens get information about sexual health and birth control methods.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The youth survey was adapted from Philliber Research Associates tool. There was no accessible
electronic version of the tool available, so an electronic version was created and revised according to
suggestions by G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and through review of
the tool for errors noted by community researchers and other research team members. Revisions
were complete by April 1, 2011.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
A demographic profile sheet was developed to complement the survey. This sheet was completed by
youth community researchers prior to beginning the survey. The sheet’s purpose was to provide
general information about respondents (e.g., age, sex, marital status, racial affiliation, educational
attainment, etc.). Certain target populations such as youth in the foster care and DJJ systems were
asked to omit questions referring to their names and addresses. As mentioned above, a unique
identifier assigned by the data manager was designated for each survey completed within these
populations.
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection official began April 2, 2011 and continued until June 4, 2011.
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT
Youth community researchers were responsible for completing four surveys per week.
The community needs assessment’s youth survey participant pool was comprised of many segments
of youth in Richmond County between the ages of 15 and 19. There was some overlapping in the
- 16 -
various segments of youth that were recruited. As such, youth were allocated to appropriate
segments to fulfill target recruitment. These segments of young people were:
SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH. This segment was comprised of teens who attended a high school within the
Richmond County Board of Education public school system or a private school within the Richmond
County district. The needs assessment team targeted 200 school-aged youth. School-aged youth
were recruited by the youth community researcher.
At training, youth researchers were given a Prospective Interviewee List for the names and contact
information of potential respondents. The youth community researchers also submitted additional
prospective survey participants to their designated needs assessment team leader throughout the
data collection period. The research team contacted each person on the list to obtain consent from
the both the youth and his or her parent or guardian. Once the youth and his or her parent or guardian
had been reached, the needs assessment team leader informed the youth community researcher that
they could contact the respondent to schedule a survey appointment.
As the list of prospective interviewees dwindled for each community researcher, the needs
assessment manager accessed additional school-aged youth through community centers and after
school programs such as the Boys & Girls Club. The needs assessment manager met with Boys &
Girls Club directors in Augusta on April 19, 2011 to discuss adult and youth community researchers
administrating surveys to club members and possible implementation of the pregnancy prevention
initiative in the future. The lead assessment team researcher met with Ms. Jacquelyn Turner from
Haigler Boys & Girls Club on April 28, 2011 and was granted access for both youth and adult
community researchers to administer surveys on May 3, 2011 from 4:30pm to 6pm.
The evaluation team also met with Mr. Tony Miller, the owner of the Diamond Lakes Community
Center in Hephzibah, GA, on April 21, 2011. Data collection took place on Saturday, May 14, 2011 at
the Compass Christian Baptist Church’s health fair in Hephzibah from 9am to 1pm. Data collection
was planned for youth in the Upward Bound Program (a college preparatory program for high school
students from low income families) at Paine College on Saturday, May 7, 2011 from 8am to 12pm;
however, the director of the program was unavailable. This data collection opportunity was
rescheduled.
- 17 -
The needs assessment team played a pivotal role in helping youth community researchers recruit
participants from local organizations. The team contacted various organizations within the community
to ask about survey administration possibilities. A member of the needs assessment team reviewed
the informed consent process with each youth participant and their parent or guardian. When the
informed consent process was completed, a youth community researcher collected data at the
designated facility. The assessment team arranged a date and time for data collection and
accompanied youth researchers during the scheduled data collection.
SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH WHO DO NOT ATTEND SCHOOL: This group includes school-aged youth who have
dropped out of school. The needs assessment team attempted to recruit 25 school-aged youth who
do not attend school from local community centers. Data collection took place on Tuesday, May 3,
2011 at May Park where the majority of respondents had gathered at the center to play basketball.
Data was also collected from caregivers of teenagers who were present. The research team returned
to May Park on Monday, May 16, 2011.
Data collection for this group also took place on Thursday, May 12, 2011 at Bernie Ward Community
Center; Wednesday, May 18, 2011 from 3:30pm to 5pm and from 6pm to 8pm at McDuffie Woods
Community Center and from 1pm to 3pm at Henry Brigham Community Center. On Thursday, April
28, 2011 the lead researcher met with Evangelist Williams from Fairview Missionary Baptist Church in
hopes of scheduling surveys with the church’s youth and adult population. The research team also
sought to collect data in the Cherry Tree Community through Evangelist Johnson’s partnership with
Ms. Rita Thompson of the Housing Authority. Unfortunately, no data collection resulted from these
efforts.
YOUTH PURSUING ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION: Youth in this group received education in an alternative
setting because they had either dropped out or been expelled from a public or private school within
the community. The needs assessment team sought to recruit 100 respondents from this group. The
youth were recruited from the National Guard Youth Challenge Academy, which provides services
and education to young people ages 16 to 18 who have dropped out of high school, are unemployed,
are substance-free, and have no criminal record. There were a total of 41 youth eligible to participate
in this survey. A member of the needs assessment team obtained consent from cadets in the
program, and Mr. Joseph Barron, the program’s lead counselor, served as the authorized
representative who granted consent for all minors. Data was collected at Fort Gordon from 1:00pm to
- 18 -
8:00pm on Saturday, May 7, 2011. Researchers returned to Fort Gordon on Saturday, May 28, 2011
to administer surveys at Fort Gordon’s Youth Service Center.
YOUTH ASSOCIATED WITH THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: This group was comprised of youth who
resided in a residential youth detention facility and whose permanent address was within Richmond
County, or who had been referred to Juvenile Court and were mandated to report to the DJJ office
weekly. The needs assessment team attempted to recruit 50 youth from this population. The
designated representative for the DJJ, Mrs. Angela Crosby, acted as the liaison for the Youth
Detention Center (YDC) and Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC) facilities.
Data from 26 detained male respondents were collected at the RYDC, a short-term detention center,
and the YDC, a long-term detention center. Signed consent forms for detained youth remained in the
respondents’ records and were not removed from the facilities. Two members of the needs
assessment team along with three youth community researchers (two females and one male) were
approved for survey administration at the facility on April 25-26, 2011. Survey documents were
reviewed for this population immediately following survey administration.
The “HIT Team”, which was tracking 36 youth associated with the DJJ, was also used for data
collection. Ten male youths reported to the HIT Team every Thursday at the DJJ downtown office
between the hours of 5:00pm and 6:00pm. Ms. Cheryl Bush, who served as a liaison for the HIT
Team, assisted the needs assessment team in establishing a special data collection process for this
group. The assessment team contacted the youths’ parents or guardians for consent, and three male
community researchers conducted surveys to these respondents on Thursday, April 21, 2011.
YOUTH ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM: This group included youth who lived with nonbiological foster parents. The needs assessment team attempted to recruit 50 respondents from this
group. Data was collected from youth who receive services from Kids Restart, a non-profit
organization that provides a supervised visitation program for children in foster care or shelters. The
assessment team met with Ms. Daniela Whitaker, the Executive Director of Kids Restart, on April 21,
2011 to a devise a data collection plan. As youth in this category may have additional challenges that
a community researcher may not have been able to manage, it was determined that Ms. Whitaker,
who is familiar with challenges faced by youth in foster care, has a relationship with respondent
families and DFACS and received training along with professional researchers to administer surveys,
would be the only person to access this population. Data collection began on May 2, 2011 and was
- 19 -
completed by the end of May. Kimberly Lee from Neighbor to Family, another foster care provider in
Augusta, was also contacted for data collection; however Ms. Lee reported that the organization does
not serve the target age group.
HISPANIC YOUTH: The assessment team planned to recruit and train a Hispanic youth community
researcher to collect data from 25 Hispanic respondents. A translator was contracted to assist with
data collection when necessary. The needs assessment manager contacted the Clinica de Latina, but
no data collection resulted from this effort. The assessment team also contacted Planned
Parenthood, HOLA newspaper, and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program office for
assistance with accessing Hispanic youth. The assessment team found it difficult to access this
population due to stringent laws now in place for illegal immigrants, and was only able to collect data
from a small number of Hispanic youth.
Below is a summary of the sampling plan for youth compared to the actual data collected:
YOUTH SUB-GROUPS
PLANNED SURVEYS
YOUTH SUB-GROUPS & DEFINITION
School-aged youth who attend school – Youth who
attend high school within the Richmond County Board of
Education public school system or private school within
the Richmond County district
School-aged youth who do not attend school – Youth
who have dropped out of school
Youth pursuing alternative education – Youth who
receive education in an alternative setting because they
have dropped out or been expelled from a formal public
or private school
Youth associated with the juvenile justice system –
Youth who reside in a residential youth detention facility
and whose permanent address is within Richmond
County, or who have been referred to the juvenile justice
system and are mandated to report to once a week to the
DJJ office
Youth associated with the foster care system – Youth
who currently live with non-biological foster parents
Hispanic/Latino(a) youth
TOTAL
- 20 -
YOUTH SUB-GROUPS
ACTUAL SURVEYS
COLLECTED
In school = 277
200
Post secondary = 17
25
61
100
46
25
50
50
0
25
7 (spread across school
types above)
425
426
COMPENSATION FOR RESEARCHERS
Researchers were compensated $10.00 per completed survey packet submitted from April 2, 2011 –
June 4, 2011, a $25.00 stipend for training attendance (after three completed survey packets
submitted), and a 50.00 allowance for personal cell phone usage (after 15 completed survey packets
submitted). There were also prizes awarded each week. A completed survey packet consisted of a
checklist with initials by both the researcher and needs assessment team member verifying
completion of informed consent, pre- and post- interview field notes, demographic sheet, and survey
instrument. It was also required that youth community researchers be present for all Sunday
conference calls.
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENTS
Each survey respondent received a one-time $10 gift certificate for their participation in the
assessment.
- 21 -
YOUTH SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
The community researchers collected 426 surveys among diverse groups of young people located in
Richmond County/Augusta, Ga. Four key variables were selected for detailed within-group data
analysis: gender, age, school status, and race. These variables were selected for further analysis
because of their implications for the implementation of evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention
programs in the community.
GENDER. Community researchers recorded gender affiliations for 424 of the 426 youth surveyed. 190
respondents (45%) were male and 234 (55%) were female, which indicates a relatively even
distribution of male and female survey respondents.
AGE. Community researchers recorded age for 424 of the 426 youth surveyed. Youth were divided
into two groups based on the priority populations for the teen pregnancy prevention initiative. 268
respondents (63%) were between the fifteen and seventeen years old, and the remaining 156 (37%)
were between ages eighteen and nineteen.
SCHOOL STATUS. Community researchers recorded school status for all 426 youth surveyed. 277
respondents (65%) were in school, 61 (14%) reported not attending school regularly, 46 (11%) were
pursuing alternative education (i.e. had dropped out of school and were completing their education in
the Youth Challenge Academy), 25 (6%) were detained in Augusta’s Regional Youth Detention
Center (RYDC), which assumes responsibility for detainees’ education, and 17 (4%) were enrolled in
post-secondary educational institutions.
RACE. Community researchers recorded racial affiliations for 421 of the 426 youth surveyed. 342
respondents (81%) identified themselves as African American, 52 (12%) identified themselves as
white, 7 (2%) identified themselves as Hispanic, and 20 (5%) selected the option for a race / ethnicity
not listed on the survey.
- 22 -
YOUTH SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SECTION 1: ISSUES THAT TEENS FACE
1. TEENS’ LEVEL OF CONCERNS ABOUT KEY ISSUES
Extremely
Concerned
Somewhat
concerned
A little
concerned
Not at all
concerned
No
Opinion
259
(61%)
95
(22%)
43
(10%)
26
(6%)
3
(1%)
184
(43%)
210
(49%)
214
(50%)
220
(52%)
173
(41%)
224
(53%)
214
(50%)
277
(65%)
126
(30%)
83
(20%)
128
(30%)
91
(22%)
122
(29%)
126
(30%)
105
(25%)
77
(18%)
79
(19%)
57
(13%)
52
(12%)
51
(12%)
81
(19%)
49
(12%)
52
(12%)
37
(9%)
34
(8%)
69
(16%)
31
(7%)
53
(13%)
43
(10%)
25
(6%)
50
(12%)
31
(7%)
2
(1%)
7
(2%)
1
(<1%)
5
(1%)
5
(1%)
2
(1%)
5
(1%)
4
(1%)
a. The threat of AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases
among teens
b. Teens dropping out of school
c.
Teen youth gangs
d. Teen pregnancy
e. Racism and discrimination
f.
Drugs and alcohol abuse
among teens
g. The threat of crime and
violence towards teens
h. Depression, suicide and other
emotional problems
i.
Sexual violence or abuse
2. TEENS' RATINGS OF COMMUNITY ON SELECT HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
a. Promoting healthy behaviors
and lifestyles among its teens?
b. Providing teens with access to
family planning services if they
should need them?
c. Providing educational
opportunities for teens and
young people?
d. Providing teens with access to
sex education programs?
e. Providing recreational activities
for teens?
f. Being a place where teens can
get a job?
g. Being a place where teens can
grow up without being
pressured by their peers to use
drugs and alcohol?
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
No Opinion /
Don’t Know
71
(17%)
84
(20%)
189
(44%)
150
(35%)
119
(28%)
121
(29%)
32
(8%)
38
(9%)
15
(4%)
32
(8%)
46
(11%)
115
(27%)
173
(41%)
89
(21%)
3
(1%)
108
(25%)
46
(11%)
102
(24%)
149
(35%)
123
(29%)
114
(27%)
128
(30%)
139
(33%)
128
(30%)
134
(32%)
113
(27%)
83
(20%)
55
(13%)
128
(30%)
72
(17%)
45
(11%)
12
(3%)
4
(1%)
7
(2%)
10
(2%)
- 23 -
2. TEENS' RATINGS OF COMMUNITY ON SELECT HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
h. Giving all young people
opportunities, regardless of their
race or ethnicity?
i. Valuing and respecting young
people?
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
No Opinion /
Don’t Know
51
(12.0%)
137
(32.2%)
150
(35.2%)
82
(19.2%)
6
(1.4%)
71
(17%)
149
(35%)
138
(32%)
60
(14%)
8
(2%)
3. TEENS’ ACCOUNTS OF COMMUNITY AND SCHOOL INVOLVEMENT OVER THE PAST YEAR
Gone to school “regularly” (that means you miss less than one day per month)?
Done any volunteer work?
Been in any activities at school like band, clubs, sports, or anything like that?
Had a paying job?
Received services from any kind of tutoring program?
Had a mentor or a big brother or big sister?
Participated in church sponsored activities?
Been in any programs like Boys & Girls Club, Boy or Girl Scouts, or something like
that?
4. TEENS’
No
Yes
100
(24%)
152
(36%)
109
(26%)
261
(62%)
291
(68%)
260
(61%)
172
(40%)
328
(77%)
326
(77%)
273
(64%)
317
(74%)
163
(38%)
135
(32%)
165
(39%)
254
(60%)
98
(23%)
ACCOUNTS OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS OR ORGANIZED ACTIVITIES
No
Yes
294
(70%)
127
(30%)
LIST OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS AND ORGANIZED ACTIVITIES:
100 Black Men, 10th District Nat. SE Region Convention, 4H Club, AAU Basketball, After School
Program; All-State, American Legion Boys State Military, Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club, Augusta Mini
Theatre, band, BAND, Basket at Rec. Dept., Basketball, Big Sisters In Action, Blue Bistro Theater,
Book Reading Club. Camp VIP, Choir, Chorus, Church, Church Basketball, Cosmetology, Cotillion
Social Inc., Creative Impressions, CSRA Band, Dance Programs, Dare Program, Debutante Club,
Delta Academy, Delta Gems, Family Y, FBLA, Football, GCAPP, GCP Band, Gut Check, HUNT 2,
Jesse Norman Performing Arts, JLA., JROTC, Laney Pearls, Mentally Challenged, Mentoring, MINE,
Mocha Sister, National Honor Society, Orchestra, Peer Mentor, POSAT Board Debutante Club,
Positive Boys Positive Men, Positive Girls In Action, Probation activities, Red Cross, Rowing,
- 24 -
S.T.A.R.S, Softball, Sports, STEM Program, Summer Camp, Swim Team, Teen Violence, The
Eastern Stars, Trees-Science, Triple Play Thru Youth Services, Upward Bound, VA Volunteer.
Venture Scouts, Work, YMCA, Youth Center, Youth Challenge Academy, 21st Century Leaders, A
TEAM, Anointed Flavor Skit Team (Church), Augusta Boxing Club, Babysitting, BAREFOOT
PRODUCTIONS/CREATIV IMPRESSIONS, Honors Programs, IB Program, IB Volunteering, Manned
An Automotive Shop, Mitchell Way Youth Group. Mr. GA Club, North Augusta Recreational Facility,
Skills USA, Special Olympics, Walker Baptist Association, Youth Board, Youth Chapter, Youth
Leadership
5. YOUTHS’ KNOWLEDGE OF HELP FOR PLANNING FOR COLLEGE
No
83
(20%)
Yes
341
(80%)
6. YOUTHS’ KNOWLEDGE OF HELP FOR FINDING A JOB OR SKILL
No
122
(29%)
Yes
303
(71%)
7. YOUTHS’ KNOWLEDGE OF HELP FOR CHOOSING A CAREER
No
Yes
117
(28%)
308
(73%)
PLACES YOUTH MENTIONED WHERE THEY COULD GET HELP FOR PLANNING FOR COLLEGE, JOB, OR
CAREER:
Sport coaches, Advisors, Army, Augusta State University, Augusta Partnership for Children, Augusta
Mini Theatre, Family members, Boss, Boys & Girls Club, CDEP, Chief, Church, College admission
office, College fairs, collegeboard.com, friends, Community worker, Internet, Family friends, Financial
aid office, Founder, GA 411, Augusta Tech, GED, Graduation coach, IB Dean, Job Corps, Mentor,
Principal, Probation officer, Recruiters, Rehab counselor, School, UGA, Teachers, Upward Bound,
YCA, AMT, YSC, JROTC, Self, Administrator, Library, Juvenile Justice staff, A staff member
REASONS YOUTH GAVE FOR NOT ACCESSING PLACES TO GET HELP FOR PLANNING FOR COLLEGE,
JOB, OR CAREER:
Been busy, Been locked up, Concerned about getting better grades now, Didn't go/show up, Does not
have time, Don't know, Family issues on my mind now, Has to complete drug court, Hasn't called
back, Haven't decided what college, Haven't had the contact info, Haven't thought that far ahead, I
- 25 -
believe she's bias and tell us we can’t do something (get into certain colleges THAT ARE obtainable),
Just Haven't/no reason, Mom is helping, Money issue, Not going, Not in that stage right now, but plan
to soon, Not on my mind right now, Not reached scheduled date yet, Online resources, Prefer
research on computer, Takes a lot of time, They know but we haven't talked, Waiting for junior year
YOUTH SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SECTION 2: ISSUES ABOUT TEEN PREGNANCY
8. DEGREE TO WHICH TEEN PREGNANCY IS PERCEIVED TO BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM AMONG
TODAY’S TEENS
Not at all serious
A little serious
Somewhat
Very serious
No Opinion
serious
8
(2%)
30
(7%)
79
(19%)
307
(72%)
9. YOUTHS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TIMING OF SEX EDUCATION
Too Soon
About right age
Too Late
85
(20%)
145
(34%)
180
(42%)
2
(1%)
No Opinion
15
(4%)
10. YOUTHS’ VIEWS ON SEXUAL INFORMATION ABOUT PROTECTION NO MATTER ONE’S SEXUAL
ACTIVITY
Information only encourages
Should be given information
No Opinion
them to have sex
49
(12%)
354
(83%)
11. YOUTHS’ OPINIONS ABOUT AGE-APPROPRIATE SEX EDUCATION
Should not
Should
28
(7%)
380
(90%)
11A. YOUTHS’ OPINIONS ABOUT AGE-APPROPRIATE SEX EDUCATION
- 26 -
22
(5%)
Depends/No Opinion
16
(4%)
1 grade
or less
st
2
grade
nd
3
grade
rd
4
grade
th
5
grade
th
6
grade
th
7
grade
th
8
grade
th
9
grade
th
10
grade
th
11
grade
th
12
grade
th
Depend
s/No
opinion
6
(2%)
0
(0%)
5
(1%)
16
(4%)
52
(14%)
129
(34%)
60
(16%)
62
(16%)
42
(11%)
2
(1%)
3
(1%)
1
(<1%)
5
(1%)
12. YOUTHS’ PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE SEX EDUCATION CLASSES ARE OFFERED
a. High schools
b. Middle schools
c.
Elementary schools
d. After school programs
No
Yes
Not Sure
96
(23%)
119
(28%)
310
(74%)
192
(46%)
300
(71%)
261
(62%)
42
(10%)
99
(24%)
26
(6%)
42
(10%)
69
(16%)
128
(31%)
13. YOUTH’ OPINIONS ON WHAT SEX ED. TOPICS SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL
a. Discourage teens from having sex before
marriage
b. Encourage teens who are sexually active
to use protection, such as condoms, to
prevent pregnancy and disease
c. Teach teens the basic facts of human
reproduction
d. Discuss how to talk about sex with a
partner
e. Discuss the dangers of AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases
f.
Discuss responsibility associated with
pregnancy and parenting
g. Provide information on healthy
relationships
h. Talk about communication with partner
Should not
Should
No Opinion
128
(30%)
9
(2.1%)
261
(61%)
411
(96.5%)
36
(9%)
6
(1.4%)
7
(2%)
49
(12%)
5
(1%)
3
(1%)
26
(6%)
31
(7%)
413
(97%)
360
(85%)
419
(99%)
419
(99%)
394
(93%)
385
(91%)
4
(1%)
16
(4%)
0
(0%)
3
(1%)
4
(1%)
9
(2%)
- 27 -
YOUTH SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SECTION 3: ISSUES ABOUT SEX & BIRTH
CONTROL
14. YOUTH WHO BELIEVE THEY CAN TALK TO THEIR PARENTS ABOUT SEX
No
Yes
152
(36%)
248
(58%)
Not Sure
26
(6%)
15. YOUTH WHO BELIEVE THEY CAN TALK TO THEIR PARENTS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL
No
Yes
Not Sure
138
(33%)
252
(59%)
35
(8%)
16. YOUTH WHO BELIEVE THEY CAN TALK TO THEIR PARENTS ABOUT PREGNANCY
No
Yes
Not Sure
115
(27%)
283
(66%)
28
(7%)
17. YOUTH WHO REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY TALKED TO PARENTS/CAREGIVERS ABOUT
SEX
No
Yes
Not Sure
116
(27%)
300
(70%)
10
(2%)
18. YOUTH WHO REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY TALKED TO PARENTS/CAREGIVERS ABOUT
BIRTH CONTROL
No
Yes
Not Sure
227
(53%)
187
(44%)
11
(3%)
- 28 -
18A. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNT OF WHO USUALLY STARTS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEX AND BIRTH
CONTROL
You
Your parent/caregiver
101
(42%)
138
(58%)
18B. YOUTHS’
ACCOUNT OF WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEX AND BIRTH CONTROL
TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST YEAR
No
Yes
Not Sure
40
(17%)
195
(83%)
0
(0%)
18C. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNTS OF TOTAL TIME SPENT IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEX AND BIRTH
CONTROL IN THE PAST YEAR
Less than 5 minutes – 12
12 (6%)
5 to 15 Minutes – 50
49 (24.6%)
16 to 30 Minutes – 38
37 (19%)
31 Minutes to 1 hour – 39
36 (18.1%)
Between 1 and 2 hours – 29
More than 2 hours – 25
29 (15%)
24 (12%)
Can’t estimate – 12
12 (6%)
19. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNTS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE TALKED TO OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OR
ADULT MENTORS ABOUT SEX OR BIRTH CONTROL
No
Yes
Not Sure
149
(35%)
272
(64%)
2
(1%)
19A. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM THEY HAVE
DISCUSSED SEX OR BIRTH CONTROL
Parent
79
(29%)
Aunt
72
(27%)
Older sister
74
(27%)
Uncle
64
(24%)
Older brother
68
(25%)
Stepmother
8
(3%)
Stepfather
13
(5%)
Grandmother
47
(17%)
Grandfather
20
(7%)
Cousin
117
(43%)
- 29 -
Other-Relative
9
(3%)
Other-Unrelated
76
(28%)
Refused
2
(1%)
19B. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNT OF WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS
TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST YEAR
No
Yes
Not Sure
52
(19%)
214
(79%)
5
(2%)
YOUTHS’ ACCOUNTS OF DEGREES OF COMFORT IN DISCUSSING TOPICS RELATED TO SEX WITH
PARENTS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS
Very
Somewhat
A little
Not at all
comfortable comfortable comfortable comfortable
20. your parent/ caregiver
No
Opinion
104
(25%)
121
(29%)
92
(22%)
103
(24%)
5
(1%)
86
(20%)
124
(29%)
89
(21%)
124
(29%)
3
(1%)
22. your parent/ caregiver
about birth control
methods
122
(29%)
96
(23%)
70
(16%)
122
(29%)
16
(4%)
23. other family members or
adult mentors about birth
control methods
90
(21%)
97
(23%)
90
(21%)
129
(30%)
19
(5%)
about sex or sexual
intercourse
21. other family members or
adult mentors about sex or
sexual intercourse
24. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD WHO THEY SEE A LOT
No
Yes
238
(56%)
184
(44%)
24A. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNT OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS OTHER PERSON GIVES SAME OR DIFFERENT
MESSAGE ABOUT SEX IN COMPARISON TO THEIR PARENT/CAREGIVER
Same Message
Different Message
144
(77%)
43
(23%)
- 30 -
24B. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNT OF WHO IS MOST LIKELY TO DISAPPROVE OF THEM HAVING SEX
Parent/Caregiver
Other Person
69
(75%)
23
(25%)
24C. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNT OF WHO THEY FIND EASIER TO TALK TO ABOUT SEX
Parent/Caregiver
Other Person
46
48
(49%)
(51%)
24D. YOUTHS’
ACCOUNT OF WHO WOULD BE MORE UPSET IF THEY GOT PREGNANT OR CAUSED A
PREGNANCY
Less upset than your
parent/caregiver
About as upset as your
parent/
Caregiver
More upset than your
parent/caregiver
23
(24%)
54
(57%)
18
(19%)
25.YOUTH
CLAIMING TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHERE TO SEND TEEN FRIENDS TO GET
CONTRACEPTIVE/BIRTH CONTROL
No
Yes
Refused to answer
139
(33%)
270
(64%)
10
(2%)
25B. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WHERE THEY FOUND OUT PLACES TO GET CONTRACEPTIVE/BIRTH
CONTROL
Friend
Place 1
Place 2
62
(23%)
28
(25%)
Flyer
3
(<1%)
0
(0%)
School
38
(14%)
15
(13%)
- 31 -
Clinic
24
(9%)
8
(7%)
Relative
Other
(cousin,
aunt, etc.)
57
(21%)
24
(21%)
112
(42%)
58
(52%)
25C. YOUTHS’ REPORT OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE PLACE TO GET CONTRACEPTIVE/BIRTH CONTROL
IS LOCATED
Place 1
Place 2
Exactly
More or less
Or, not really
know
201
(74%)
100
(86%)
34
(13%)
10
(9%)
36
(13%)
7
(6.0%)
25D. YOUTHS’ BELIEFS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A FRIEND WOULD NEED PERMISSION FROM
HIS/HER PARENTS TO GET SERVICES FROM VARIOUS PLACES TO GET CONTRACEPTIVE/BIRTH
CONTROL
Place 1
Place 2
No
Yes
Don’t know
157
(58%)
65
(55%)
60
(22%)
31
(26%)
53
(20%)
23
(19%)
25E. YOUTHS’ BELIEF ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT STAFF AT VARIOUS PLACES WOULD TELL THE
FRIEND’S PARENTS IF HE/SHE CAME THERE FOR CONTRACEPTIVE/BIRTH CONTROL
Place 1
Place 2
No
Yes
Don’t know
163
(60%)
74
(62%)
55
(20%)
23
(19%)
53
(20%)
22
(19%)
25F. YOUTH’S BELIEFS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A FRIEND WOULD NEED MONEY TO GET
CONTRACEPTIVE/BIRTH CONTROL FROM PLACE
Place 1
Place 2
No
Yes
Don’t know
135
(50%)
47
(40%)
102
(38%)
59
(50%)
32
(12%)
13
(11%)
25G. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE EVER BEEN TO A PLACE FOR
CONTRACEPTIVE SERVICES
Place 1
Place 2
No
Yes
Don’t know
162
(61%)
74
(63%)
101
(38%)
42
(36%)
2
(1%)
1
(1%)
- 32 -
25H. YOUTHS’ REASONS FOR NOT GOING TO A PLACE TO GET CONTRACEPTIVE/BIRTH CONTROL
Place 1
Place 2
1.
I think I should go to my family doctor
29
(18%)
2
(3%)
2.
Don’t like the people who go there
3.
Don’t like the care they give
4.
Don’t like the location
4
(2%)
1
(1%)
3
(2%)
2
(3%)
1
(1%)
3
(4%)
5.
Don’t believe in birth control
6
(4%)
4
(5%)
6.
Not sexually active
73
(45%)
32
(43%)
7.
Something else:
51
(31%)
31
(42%)
26. YOUTH’S FEELINGS ABOUT SEX-RELATED DECISION-MAKING
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No
opini
on /
Don’t
Know
a. It’s better to wait to have sex until you
are out of high school.
116
(27%)
167
(39%)
99
(23%)
18
(4%)
25
(6%)
b. Using birth control when you have sex
is a lot of trouble and not worth it.
(When we say birth control, we mean
things like condoms, the Pill, shot, or
other birth control methods.)
25
(5.9%)
60
(14.1%)
151
(35.5%)
160
(37.6%)
29
(6.8%)
c. The best way for teens to protect
themselves against pregnancy or
disease is to use a condom every
time they have sex.
217
(51%)
152
(36%)
36
(9%)
13
(3%)
7
(2%)
- 33 -
27. YOUTHS’ OPINIONS ABOUT HOW EASY IT IS FOR ADOLESCENTS TO GET CONDOMS IN THEIR
COMMUNITY
Very easy
Pretty easy
Somewhat easy
Not easy at all
213
(50%)
116
(27%)
80
(19%)
15
(4%)
28. YOUTHS’ KNOWLEDGE OF VENDING MACHINES WHERE THEY CAN GET CONDOMS IN THEIR
COMMUNITY
No
Yes
338
(80%)
86
(20%)
29. YOUTHS’ KNOWLEDGE OF PLACES WHERE CONDOMS ARE HANDED OUT FREE TO ANYBODY WHO
WANTS ONE
No
Yes
187
(44%)
238
(56%)
30. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE IN THEIR CIRCLE OF FRIENDS ARE HAVING SEX
No
Yes
Not Sure
45
(11%)
345
(81%)
36
(9%)
31. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF AGE FRIENDS GENERALLY SAY THEY FIRST HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Don’t
know
1
(<1%)
7
(2%)
30
(10%)
51
(17%)
58
(19%)
70
(23%)
62
(20%)
16
(5%)
5
(2%)
7
(2%)
- 34 -
32. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT FRIENDS EVER USE OR DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT
AGAINST PREGNANCY
No
Yes
Not Sure
36
(9%)
290
(72%)
76
(19%)
33. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF FRIENDS WHO HAVE EVER USED OR DONE ANYTHING TO PROTECT
AGAINST SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES AND HIV
No
Yes
Not Sure
37
(9%)
265
(66%)
99
(25%)
33A. YOUTHS REPORTS OF FRIENDS’ USE OF PROTECTION AGAINST PREGNANCY OR DISEASE
A little of the
time
Some of the
time
About half
the time
Most of the
time
Every time
Not sure
14
(5%)
29
(10%)
19
(7%)
73
(26%)
97
(34%)
52
(18%)
34. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF EVER GOING TO A DOCTOR OR ANY KIND OF CLINIC TO GET BIRTH
CONTROL
No
Yes
318
(75%)
106
(25%)
35. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WHERE THEY WENT TO GET BIRTH CONTROL
Clinic
Mall
Health Fair
58
(55%)
2
(2%)
17
(16%)
Other
33
(31%)
OTHERS:
College Campus, County Fair, Friend, Friend House, Gym, Health Department, Home, Homeboy, Hospital,
Library, May fest, Medical Office, Planned Parenthood, Rec. Dept., S&S, School, Sex Class at Serenity,
Store, Target
- 35 -
36. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF HAVING EVER BOUGHT CONDOMS FROM A DRUG STORE OR OTHER KIND
OF STORE
No
Yes
286
(67%)
140
(33%)
37. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF HAVING EVER BOUGHT EMERGENCY BIRTH CONTROL/“EMERGENCY
CONTRACEPTION” FROM A DRUGSTORE OR OTHER KIND OF STORE
No
Yes
411
(97%)
14
(3%)
38. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF HAVING EVER GOTTEN A CONDOM FROM A VENDING MACHINE
No
Yes
404
(95%)
22
(5%)
39. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF HAVING EVER TAKEN A FREE CONDOM BEING DISTRIBUTED
No
Yes
321
(75%)
105
(25%)
39A. PLACES YOUTH HAVE GONE FOR FREE CONDOMS
Clinic
Mall
Health Fair
Other
58
(55%)
2
(2%)
20
(20%)
32
(31%)
40. YOUTH’S REPORT OF WHO WOULD RAISE CHILD IN THE EVENT OF A PREGNANCY
Both the father and me
No one, I’d do it alone
My parents/relatives
My friends
The father
The father’s
parents/relatives
The father’s friends
Other
264 (62%)
71 (17%)
199 (47%)
32 (8%)
42 (10%)
68 (16%)
11 (3%)
33 (8%)
- 36 -
41. YOUTHS’ PERCEPTION OF DIFFICULTY IN BEING A TEEN PARENT
Not at all difficult
A little difficult
Somewhat difficult
Very difficult
21
(5%)
48
(11%)
68
(16%)
288
(68%)
42. AGE
15
16
17
18
19
72
(17%)
103
(24%)
93
(22%)
120
(28%)
36
(9%)
43. GENDER
Male
Female
190
(45%)
234
(55%)
No
Yes
69
(16%)
357
(84%)
44. SCHOOL STATUS
45. SCHOOLS ATTENDED
A.R. Johnson High School; Academy of Richmond County; Alabama St. University ; Alternative School;
Aquinas High School; ARC; ARJ; Augusta St University; Augusta Tech College; Benedict College; Bungalow
Rd Alternative School; Butler High School; C.H. Terrell Academy; Camden County High; Campbell University;
Cross Creek High School; John S. Davidson Fine Arts; Davidson Fine Arts Magnet; Detention Center; EAST
AUGUSTA; Elbert County Cross Roads; Evans High; Glenn Hills High School; Glenn Hills Middle; Groves
High School; Grovetown High School; Hephzibah High School; Immaculate Conception School; Jackson State
University; Laney High School; Middle Georgia College; NORTH AUGUSTA HS; Paine College; Richmond;
Richmond Academy H.S.; Richmond County Night School; Savannah State; Sego Middle; T.W Josey High;
Terrell Academy; Tubman Educational Center; Tutt; University of South Carolina; Westminster; Westside High
School; Youth Challenge Academy
Home School
Independent study
2
(1%)
3
(1%)
- 37 -
46. CURRENT GRADE LEVEL
8th
9th
10th
11th
12th
More than
12th
9
(3%)
44
(12%)
90
(25%)
97
(27%);
90
(25%)
29
(8%)
47. RACE/ETHNIC AFFILIATION
African American
(non-Hispanic)
Hispanic
White (nonHispanic)
Other
342
(83%)
7
(2%)
52
(13%)
10
(2%)
48. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNTS OF WHO THEY CURRENTLY LIVE WITH
Mother
Father
Step-parent
Grandmother
Grandfather
Legal Guardian
Foster parent(s)
Brothers
Sisters
Others
355 (83%)
153 (36%)
60 (14%)
42 (10%)
12 (3%)
5 (1%)
0 (0%)
172 (40%)
167 (39%)
477 (11%)
49. YOUTHS’ ACCOUNT OF NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THEIR HOUSE
0
2 (1%)
1
57 (14%)
2
108 (26%)
3
99 (24%)
4
70 (17%)
5
47 (11%)
6
19 (5%)
7
11 (3%)
8
6 (1%)
9
1 (<1%)
10
1 (<1%)
11
1 (<1%)
- 38 -
50. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT ADULTS IN THE HOUSEHOLD CURRENTLY WORK FOR
PAY
No
Yes
43
(10%)
380
(90%)
50A. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WORK STATUS OF ADULTS IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD
0
1
2
3
4
5
# of people in household who work
Full-time
64
(15%)
181
(44%)
144
(35%)
23
(6%)
2
(1%)
2
(1%)
# of people in household who work
Part-time
283
(72%)
81
(21%)
24
(6%)
3
(1%)
1
(<1%)
0
(0%)
51. YOUTHS’ REPORT OF CURRENT MARITAL STATUS
Single
Married
417
(100%)
0
(0%)
52. YOUTHS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A STEADY GIRLFRIEND OR BOYFRIEND
No
Yes
220
(52%)
203
(48%)
53. LENGTH OF TIME LIVING IN CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD
< 1 year
6-10 years
2 – 5 years
131
(31%)
73
(17%)
95
(23%)
>10 years
123
(29%)
54. LENGTH OF TIME LIVING IN THE U.S.
Born in the U.S.
< 1 year
2 – 5 years
6– 10 years
> 10 years
351
(83%)
0
(0%)
3
(1%)
1
(<1%)
70
(17%)
- 39 -
CAREGIVERS SURVEY
Results
- 40 -
CAREGIVER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
CAREGIVER SURVEY DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
PURPOSE
The caregiver survey was designed to collect information from parents or caregivers (i.e., adults who
provide parental care and support to youth, such as an extended family member, guardian, or friend) of
youth about their knowledge, attitudes, opinions, and behaviors concerning teen sexual and
reproductive health, teen pregnancy, sex education, and youth services in Richmond County.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The youth survey was adapted from a Philliber Research Associates survey tool. There was no
accessible electronic version of the tool available, so an electronic version was created and revised
according to suggestions by G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and
through review of the tool for errors noted by community researchers and other research team
members. Revisions were due by April 1, 2011.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
A demographic profile sheet was developed to complement the survey. This sheet was completed by
adult community researchers prior to beginning the survey. The sheet’s purpose was to provide
general information about respondents (e.g., age, sex, marital status, racial affiliation, educational
attainment, etc.).
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection officially began on April 2, 2001 and continued through June 4, 2011.
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT
Adult community researchers identified and recruited adult caregivers of Richmond County youth.
Agencies that provide services or support to the subgroups were also identified and contacted to serve
as referral sources and data collection sites. Adult community researchers administered surveys to
participants face-to-face or over the phone.
The community researcher or lead researcher also
- 41 -
obtained informed consent and completed the demographic sheet prior to completing the survey
document.
CAREGIVERS WERE DIVIDED INTO FIVE SUBGROUPS:
BIOLOGICAL PARENTS. Biological parents of Richmond County youth were recruited from perspective
interviewee lists completed by adult community researchers. Parents of Richmond County youth who
expressed interest in completing the adult survey during the informed consent process for youth were
also recruited by the community needs assessment team.
EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBERS OR FRIENDS SERVING AS CAREGIVERS. Extended family members or friends
who serve as caregivers were recruited from Richmond County. On April 4, 2011, the community needs
assessment team advised adult community researchers to ask their caregiver participants to identify
three additional adults who could also participate in the assessment. On May 8, 2011, other adults who
serve as caregivers, as referenced in the caregiver surveys, were recruited by the adult community
researchers. Adult community researchers also accompanied youth researchers during data collection
at local community centers and at the Boys & Girls Club.
FOSTER PARENTS. On April 21, 2011, the needs assessment team met with Kids Restart, Inc. to discuss
data collection opportunities. The community needs assessment team partnered with Ms. Daniela
Whitaker of Kids Restart to recruit foster parents. Ms. Whitaker completed the professional researcher
training on April 26, 2011 and began administering surveys to foster parents receiving services from
Kids Restart.
The needs assessment team also met with Neighbor to Family, another foster care provider in Augusta,
on April 19, 2011, to discuss data collection opportunities. After meeting, it was reported that the
agency does not have any youth within the target age group at this time. The community needs
assessment team continued to follow up with various foster care agencies in the community; however,
very little data were collected from this priority population.
PARENTS OF YOUTH INVOLVED IN DJJ. Parents of Richmond County youth who were associated with the
DJJ were recruited via networks of adult community researchers. The community needs assessment
team worked with core partners who served families associated with the DJJ to recruit caregivers in
April 2011. On May 2, 2011 the community needs assessment team met to discuss alternative
recruitment strategies due to low recruitment numbers from previous strategies. The community needs
- 42 -
assessment team completed data collection on-site at the Richmond County Juvenile Justice
Courthouse on May 19, 2011 and May 26, 2011.
HISPANIC CAREGIVERS WHO PROVIDE PARENTAL SUPPORT TO YOUTH. The community needs assessment
team worked to identify agencies serving Hispanic populations in Richmond County to assist with
recruiting and administering surveys to Hispanic caregivers. However, the community needs
assessment team was not able to recruit caregivers from the Hispanic community.
Below is a summary of the sampling plan for adults compared to the actual data collected:
ADULT SUB-GROUPS & DEFINITION
ADULT SUBGROUPS PLANNED
SURVEYS
ADULT SUB-GROUPS
ACTUAL SURVEYS
COLLECTED
200
363
100
105
50
4
50
6
50
0
450
(missing categories for 9
parents)
Biological parents – Birth parents of Richmond
County youth
Extended family members – Aunts and uncles,
grandparents, older siblings, cousins, etc. who
serve as guardians for Richmond County youth
Foster parents – State certified adult guardians to
youth who have been designated wards of the
court and placed into a private home
Parents of young people affiliated with the juvenile
justice system – Biological or non-biological
guardians with minors currently detained in a
detention center (target recruitment:
Parents of Hispanic/Latino Youth
483
TOTAL
COMPENSATION FOR RESEARCHERS
Adult community researchers received $10.00 for each completed interview packet. The interview
packets contained the following documents: informed consent documents, pre- and post- interview field
notes, demographic profile sheets, caregiver surveys, and, if needed, incident reports.
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT
Respondents received a one-time gift card of $10.00 for participating in the assessment.
- 43 -
CAREGIVER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
AGE
18 - 24
25-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or older
Refused
10
(3%)
32
(9%)
32
(9%)
104
(29%)
76
(21%)
24
(7%)
1
(<1%)
GENDER
Male
Female
119
(26%)
336
(74%)
RELATIONSHIP TO YOUTH
Parent, stepparent, adoptive parent, foster
parent
Legal guardian
Grandparent, step grandparent, adoptive
grandparent, or foster grandparent
Sibling (brother or sister, stepbrother, or step
sister)
Other relative (e.g. aunt, uncle, cousin)
Non-relative (family friend, parent, partner of
parent)
Other; what?
__________________________________
363 (76%)
11 (2%)
50 (10%)
11 (2%)
20 (4%)
5 (1%)
19 (4%)
RACIAL/ETHNIC AFFILIATION
African American
(non-Hispanic)
Hispanic
White
(non-Hispanic)
Other
443
(92%)
13
(3%)
32
(7%)
7
(1%)
LAST GRADE COMPLETED
th
8 grade or less
3 (1%)
Grades 9-11
35 (7%)
High school graduate or equivalent
173 (36%)
Trade school
99 (21%)
- 44 -
College graduate
122 (25%)
Post graduate
48 (10%)
Refused
3 (1%)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
speak English?
read English?
write English?
Not at all
well
Not very well
Pretty well
Very well
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
5
(39%)
5
(39%)
5
(39%)
8
(62%)
8
(62%)
8
(62%)
FIRST LANGUAGE
English
Spanish
Other
475
(99%)
4
(1%)
1
(<1%)
LENGTH OF TIME LIVING IN CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD
< 1 year
2 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
> 10 years
38
(8%)
127
(28%)
121
(27%)
166
(37%)
LENGTH OF TIME LIVING IN THE U.S.
Born in the U.S.
< 1 year
2 – 5 years
6– 10 years
> 10 years
460
(95%)
5
(1%)
1
(<1%)
1
(<1%)
30
(6%)
REPORTS OF EMPLOYED PERSONS LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD
No
Yes
Not Sure
81
(17%)
398
(83%)
2
(<1%)
- 45 -
NUMBER OF EMPLOYED PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD
# of people in household who
work Full-time
# of people in household who
work Part-time
0
1
2
3
4
5
81
203
147
14
3
1
(18%)
(45%)
(33%)
(3%)
(1%)
(<1%)
353
60
8
2
0
0
(84%)
(14%)
(2%)
(1%)
(0%)
(0%)
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE RECEIVED BY PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD
Food Stamps
TANF
Medicaid
No
Yes
Not sure
358
(74%)
455
(95%)
352
(74%)
123
(26%)
24
(5%)
126
(26%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(<1%)
HEALTH INSURANCE STATUS
No
Yes
Not Sure
194
(42%)
268
(58%)
0
(0%)
REPORTED HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS:
AARP, Aetna, Aflac, American General, Assurant Healthcare, Beech Street, Blue Cross Blue Shield of GA,
CHC, Cigna, Consumer Life Insurance, Coventry, Cuna, Deers/Tri-care, GA State Health, GEHA, Hartford,
healthcare, Horizon, Humana, Indigent Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare GHI,
MetLife, Midwest National Life, Morrison's health insurance, Nationwide, Not sure of name, Peach Care,
Secure Healthcare, Tricare, UMR (MCG), United health Care, United Life, University Healthcare, USAA Bank,
WellCare
- 46 -
CAREGIVER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SECTION 1: ISSUES TEENS FACE
1. CAREGIVERS’ LEVEL OF CONCERN ABOUT KEY ISSUES
Not at all
A little
Concerned concerned
a. The threat of AIDS
and other sexually
transmitted diseases
among teens
b. Teens dropping out of
school
c.
Teen youth gangs
d. Teen pregnancy
e. Racism and
discrimination
f.
Drugs and alcohol
abuse among teens
g. The threat of crime
and violence towards
teens
h. Depression, suicide
and other emotional
problems
i. Sexual violence or
abuse
Somewhat
concerned
Extremely
concerned
No
Opinion
2
(<1%)
10
(2%)
58
(12%)
411
(85%)
1
(<1%)
2
(<1%)
7
(2%)
0
(0%)
13
(3%)
4
(1%)
15
(3%)
24
(5%)
10
(2%)
34
(7%)
18
(4%)
88
(18%)
82
(17%)
90
(19%)
140
(29%)
89
(19%)
376
(78%)
369
(77%)
380
(79%)
292
(61%)
370
(77%)
1
(<1%)
0
(0%)
1
(<1%)
2
(<1%)
0
(0%)
4
(1%)
14
(3%)
91
(19%)
373
(77%)
0
(0%)
5
(1%)
25
(5%)
111
(23%)
339
(70%)
2
(<1%)
8
(2%)
20
(4%)
85
(18%)
368
(76%)
1
(<1%)
2. CAREGIVERS’ RATINGS OF COMMUNITY ON SELECT HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
a. That promotes healthy behaviors
and lifestyles among its teens?
b. That provides teens with access
to family planning services if they
should need them?
c. That provides educational
opportunities for teens and young
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
No
Opinion /
Don’t
Know
131
(27%)
87
(18%)
154
(32%)
150
(31%)
151
(31%)
179
(37%)
39
(8%)
48
(10%)
6
(1%)
18
(4%)
74
144
192
65
7
- 47 -
people?
d. That provides teens with access
to sex education programs?
e. That provides recreational
activities for teens?
f.
Where teens can get a job?
g. Where teens can grow up without
being pressured by their peers to
use drugs and alcohol?
h. That gives all young people
opportunities, regardless of their
race or ethnicity?
i. That values and respects young
people?
(15%)
112
(23%)
104
(22%)
123
(26%)
177
(37%)
(30%)
151
(31%)
126
(26%)
172
(36%)
157
(33%)
(40%)
138
(29%)
168
(35%)
132
(28%)
107
(22%)
(14%)
48
(10%)
73
(15%)
40
(8%)
30
(6%)
(2%)
33
(7%)
8
(2%)
10
(2%)
10
(2%)
118
(25%)
178
(37%)
147
(31%)
34
(7%)
5
(1%)
108
(22%)
174
(36%)
148
(31%)
43
(9%)
8
(2%)
3. CAREGIVERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF HELP FOR PLANNING FOR COLLEGE
No
Yes
Not Sure
141
(29%)
326
(68%)
15
(3%)
3A. COLLEGE PREPARATION RESOURCES AND SERVICES:
C.H.O.P.,100 Black Men, Admission at Phoenix College,211 (community info line), Augusta Mini Theater,
Elected officials, DFCS, Antioch Baptist Church, Area of that field, Augusta Housing Authority Program,
Augusta Partnership, Augusta State Counselor, Department of Labor, Augusta State University, Augusta Tech
Transition, Augusta Technical College, Augusta University Career Center, Board of Education, Career
Centers, Case worker- Sonya Cosby, Top Teens of America, University Systems of Georgia, Goodwill, MCA,
Church members, Church outreach program, School administrators, Church Pastor, Church youth advisors,
Job Connection, Job Fairs, Phoenix University, Laney HS, Hope Scholarship, College Admissions Office, PIA
Learning Center, College student advisors, Fraternities, Colleges, Pell Grants, Community Center, Broadway
Baptist, Community Colleges, Computer/Internet, CSRA Regional Education Service Agency, Creative
Vocational Services, DFCS-Mr. Wright, Delta Academy, Delta Sigma Theta, Local church, CSRA business
league, Department of Labor, DFAC's Job Readiness, Diamond Lakes Program, 411 online , MBS learning
center, Family, Family friend, McDuffie Woods, Mocha Sister (Mentors), Fastweb.com, Financial aid at college,
Former Teacher, Fort Gordon, Peer group, Friends, Youth services, Ft. Gordon Youth Center, God parents,
Good Hope Baptist Church, Good Shepherd Baptist Church, Rev. Monroe, Pregnancy Center, Graduation
Coaches, Health Department, Uncle, Heritage Christian Academy, (ILP) Independent Living Program, Youth
Center Ft. Gordon, Youth Challenge, Title I-School System,
Dream Builders of America Youth, Job
Corporation, Military recruiters, JTPA (Jr Training Program Ast.), Kids Restart, Academic counselors, Library
for books, Library internet, Local college, Clergy, Local Community Colleges, Local High school, Mark
Academy, May park program, Calling places, Mentor Program, Mentors, Community Leader, Military Program,
- 48 -
Rev. Carl Jones, National Lighthouse Foundation, Next door neighbor, Other college students, Co-workers,
College Assistance Program, Paine college, Pastors, Pastor Tony Miller, Principal, Professional associates,
Radio station, Restoration Church-youth ministry, School, FBLA, School counselors, School library, Self,
Sorority sisters, SRP college night, Strayer University, Teacher/professor, Teen Works, Unemployment office,
Upward Bound - Paine College, WIA
4. CAREGIVERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF HELP FINDING A JOB
Yes
No
164
(34%)
298
(62%)
Not Sure
17
(4%)
4A. PLACES CAREGIVERS MENTIONED WHERE YOUTH COULD GET HELP FINDING A JOB:
Community Center, Computer/Internet, Co-workers, DCT/public schools, DFCS-Mr. Wright, Delta Sorority,
Delta Academy, Department of Labor Career Center, DFCS, DOL-teen site, Dream Builders of Augusta,
Employment agencies, Employment office, Family, Financial officer, Fort Gordon. Fort Gordon career
counselor, Friend of parents, Friends, Ft. Gordon Hire Program, GA teen works, Ga. Department of Labor,
Georgia Personnel, Girl Scouts, Good Hope Baptist Church, Goodwill Career Center, Goodwill Job Connection
Graduation Coaches
H.S. class (business skills) Heritage Christian Academy, Hospital, ILP, indeed.com,
Job Connection, Job Corps, Job Fairs, Job services, Job Shop, Jones Behavioral, JTPA, Junior Achievement,
Library, Life-skills for women, Local colleges, Local restaurants, Local store, Local Technical School, Man
power, Mark Academy, MAU, MBS learning center, MCG Volunteer, Methodist church, Mocha Sister
(Mentors), National Hiring Day, Neighbor to Family, Networking with businesses, Newspaper, One Stop
Career Center, Online classes, Place of employment, Paine college, Parent facilitator,
Pastor, Pastor
Miller, Peer group, Positive Boys Positive Men, Principals, RCBOE, Recreation department, Restoration
Church-youth ministry, Rites of Passage-Good Shepherd, Salvation Army, School (Tutt), Schools, Self made
entrepreneur, Sheraton hotel, Social Worker, Sorority, Staffing Agency, Strong Tower Ministries, Summer
Camp, Summer Youth Programs, Teacher/professor, Temp agencies, Top Teens of America, Trade school,
Uncle, Unemployment office, Upward Bound-Paine College, USAjobs.com, Volunteer at different locations,
Volunteer at hospitals, Walton Options, Weed & Seed Programs, Word of mouth,
www.augustaga.com,
www.simplyhired.com, YMCA, Youth Center Ft. Gordon, Youth services
5. CAREGIVERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF HELP WITH CHOOSING A CAREER
Yes
No
162
(34%)
295
(62%)
Not Sure
22
(5%)
5A. PLACES CAREGIVERS MENTIONED WHERE YOUTH COULD GET HELP PLANNING A CAREER:
100 Black Men of Augusta, Acrux Staffing, Annual college night, Antioch Baptist, Any college, ASU, Augusta
Chronicle, Augusta State Career Center, Augusta State University, Augusta Tech, Augusta Tech Counseling,
- 49 -
Augusta University Career Center, Boys & Girls Club, Broadway Baptist, Business establishments, Business
professionals, Career agencies, Career Center-Augusta Tech, Career Centers, Career counselor, Career
Fairs, Career recruiter, Career service center, Career Shop, Career test at school, career.com,
Careerbuilder.com, Case Worker, Chamber of Commerce, Child, Child's basketball coach, Church Group,
Church members, Churches, Civic Leader, Civil Air Patrol, Coaches, College advisor, College career center,
College Job placement, College night, Community Center, Community college, Community professionals, Coworkers, CSRA apprenticeship, CSRA business league, Delta Academy, Delta Sorority, Department of Labor,
DFCS, DFCS-Mr. Wright, Dream Builders of America, Dream Builders of Augusta, Family, Family Connection,
Family friends, Father, Fort Gordon, Fraternities, Friends, Good Shepherd Baptist Church, Good Will Job
Center, Goodwill Career Center, Goodwill, Grad coach, Grandfather, Grandmother, H.S. career centers, H.S.
classes, Hair dresser, Heritage Christian Academy, High school, Hospitals, Husband, IEP coordinator,
Independent Living Program, Internet, Aunt, Job Connections, Job Corps, Job fairs, Job shadowing, Job Shop,
JTPA, Kelly Services, Library, Mark Academy, Mentors, Military recruiter, Mocha Sisters, NAACP Program,
New Zion Hill, Newspaper, One Stop Career Center, Orientation at colleges, Paine College, Paine College
career office, Parent facilitator, Pastors, Peers, Positive Boys Positive Men, Psychologist, Red Cross
volunteers, Refer to someone in that field, Restoration Church-youth ministry, Rev. Carl Jones, Rev. Tony
Miller, Rev. West, School, School (Tutt), Sororities, Tabernacle youth program, Talk with pediatrician,
Teacher/professor, Principals, Technical schools, Teen Works, Tennis Coach, Uncle, University of Phoenix,
Upward Bound, VA college, Visit business of interest, Wife, www.georgia.gov, www.indeed.com,
www.salary.com, YMCA, Youth Challenge, Youth Groups
CAREGIVER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SECTION 2: ISSUES ABOUT TEENS PREGNANCY
6. DEGREE TO WHICH TEEN PREGNANCY IS PERCEIVED TO BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM AMONG
CAREGIVERS
Not at all serious
A little serious
Somewhat
serious
Very serious
No Opinion
1
(<1%)
12
(3%)
36
(8%)
430
(89%)
3
(1%)
- 50 -
7. CAREGIVERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PROVIDING BIRTH CONTROL WITHOUT PARENTAL PERMISSION
A very bad thing
A bad thing
A good thing
A very good thing
16
(3%)
37
(8%)
226
(47%)
204
(42%)
8. CAREGIVERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PROVIDING BIRTH CONTROL TO YOUNGER TEENS WITHOUT
PARENTAL PERMISSION
A very bad
thing
A bad thing
A good
thing
A very good
thing
52
(11%)
129
(27%)
239
(50%)
92
(19%)
139
(29%)
98
(20%)
187
(39%)
111
(23%)
61
(13%)
152
(32%)
104
(22%)
85
(18%)
a. Ages 16 to 17 years old
b. Ages 14 to 15 years old
c.
Ages 12 to 13 years old
9. CAREGIVERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TIMING OF SEX EDUCATION
Too Soon
About right age
Too Late
No Opinion
69
(14%)
97
(20%)
308
(64%)
9
(2%)
10. CAREGIVERS’ VIEWS ON SEXUAL INFORMATION ABOUT PROTECTION NO MATTER ONE’S
SEXUAL ACTIVITY
Information only encourages
them to have sex
Should be given information
No Opinion
24
(5%)
455
(94%)
4
(1%)
11. CAREGIVERS’ OPINIONS ABOUT AGE-APPROPRIATE SEX EDUCATION
Should not
Should
Depends/No Opinion
17
(4%)
449
(93%)
17
(4%)
- 51 -
11A. CAREGIVERS’ OPINIONS ABOUT AGE-APPROPRIATE SEX EDUCATION
st
nd
rd
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
th
1 grade
or less
2
grade
3
grade
4
grade
5
grade
6
grade
7
grade
8
grade
9
grade
10
grade
11
grade
12
grade
Depend
s/No
opinion
16
(3%)
7
(2%)
16
(3%)
29
(6%)
81
(17%
)
127
(27%
)
84
(18%
)
72
(16%
)
18
(4%)
4
(1%)
4
(1%)
1
(<1%
)
6
(1%)
12. CAREGIVERS’ PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE SEX EDUCATION CLASSES ARE OFFERED
a. High schools
b. Middle schools
c.
Elementary schools
d. After school programs
No
Yes
Not Sure
54
(11%)
86
(18%)
233
(48%)
179
(37%)
306
(63%)
256
(53%)
55
(11%)
89
(19%)
123
(26%)
141
(29%)
195
(40%)
214
(44%)
13. CAREGIVERS’ OPINIONS ON WHAT SEX ED. TOPICS SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT THE HIGH SCHOOL
LEVEL
a. Discourage teens from having sex before
marriage
b. Encourage teens who are sexually active to use
protection, such as condoms, to prevent
pregnancy and disease
c. Teach teens the basic facts of human
reproduction
d. Discuss with teens how to talk about sex with a
partner
e. Discuss with teens the dangers of AIDS and
other sexually transmitted diseases
f.
Discuss the responsibility associated with
pregnancy and parenting
g. Discuss healthy relationships
h. Talk about communication with partner
- 52 -
Should not
Should
No Opinion
33
(7%)
4
(1%)
440
(92%)
474
(98%)
8
(2%)
5
(1%)
6
(1%)
21
(4%)
2
(<1%)
5
(1%)
9
(2%)
13
(3%)
473
(98%)
447
(93%)
477
(99%)
476
(99%)
466
(97%)
461
(95%)
4
(1%)
15
(3%)
3
(1%)
2
(<1%)
8
(2%)
9
(2%)
14. CAREGIVERS’ PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF SEX ED. INFORMATION
a. Information to talk to your child(ren)
about sex education
b. Information to talk to your child(ren)
about birth control and teen
pregnancy prevention
c. Information about where you can go
for teen pregnancy and family
planning issues
Not at
all
useful
A little
useful
Somew
hat
useful
Very
useful
No
Opinion
5
(1%)
7
(1%)
18
(4%)
13
(3%)
67
(14%)
67
(14%)
393
(81%)
395
(82%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
10
(2%)
20
(4%)
56
(12%)
397
(82%)
0
(0%)
15. KNOWLEDGE OF PLACES, CLASSES, OR WORKSHOPS FOR SEX EDUCATION FOR CAREGIVERS
No
Yes
Not Sure
353
(73%)
115
(24%)
15
(3%)
15A. PLACES CAREGIVERS MENTIONED WHERE SEX EDUCATION OFFERED FOR CAREGIVERS:
Augusta Care Pregnancy Center, Abuse agencies, ARCCP, Augusta Pregnancy Center, Augusta State, Broad
St (Planned Parenthood), Career planning, Caseworker, Cell Break Recovery, Churches, Clergy, Clinics,
College course human sexuality, Community Counselors, Community events, Community Health Department,
Community Center, CYS Parents Support Group, Doctors/Hospital, Family Planning Center, Fort Gordon Sex
Class, Foster Care System, Guidance Counselor, Health Center, Health clinic, Health dept / STD & BC, Home,
Hospital at Fort Gordon, Library-Reading, Lucy's Love Shop, MCG, Neighborhood program, Not sure, Nurse,
OB-GYN Doctor, Online classes, Parents, Private MD, Pure Romance, Restoration marriage ministries,
Richmond County Dept of DFCS, School nurse, School programs, Schools, St. Joseph/Trinity Hospital,
Tabernacle Baptist Church, Teen Center, TV programs
15B. NUMBER OF CLASSES OR WORKSHOPS ATTENDED BY CAREGIVERS
RANGE: 0 – 20
15C. USEFULNESS OF CLASSES OR WORKSHOPS IN TALKING TO TEENS ABOUT SEX
No
Yes
19
(24%)
59
(76%)
16. KNOWLEDGE OF PLACES OR PROGRAMS FOR CAREGIVERS THAT HELP THEM TALK TO THEIR KIDS
ABOUT SEX
No
Yes
Not sure
377
(79%)
89
(19%)
12
(3%)
- 53 -
16A. PLACES OR PROGRAMS MENTIONED THAT HELP CAREGIVERS TALK TO KIDS ABOUT SEX:
ARCCP, Augusta Care Pregnancy, Augusta Partnership for Kids, Augusta State-Family Counseling, Augusta
Tech, Care Pregnancy Center, Caseworker, CDC, Church, Church groups, Clinics Community counselor,
Crisis Pregnancy Center, CYS Parents Support Group, ILP, DFCS, Doctors, Doctor's Hospital, Family
Planning, Foster Care System, Health clinic, Health department, High school, Home, Hospital at Fort Gordon,
Hospitals, Internet, Jones Behavioral Health, Library, Macedonia Baptist Church, MCG, Neighborhood
program, Nurse, Online classes, Parent group, Pediatrician, Planned Parenthood, School Nurse, Schools,
Serenity, St. Joseph/Trinity, University Hospital-Prompt Care, Youth Summit
16B. CAREGIVERS’ REPORTS OF ATTENDING SUCH PROGRAMS
NO
Yes
38
(41%)
55
(59%)
16C. CAREGIVERS REPORTS OF BEING ABLE TO TALK MORE OPENLY TO CHILD(REN) ABOUT SEX AS
A RESULT OF SUCH PROGRAMS
No
Yes
3
(5%)
54
(95%)
CAREGIVER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SECTION 3: ISSUES ABOUT SEX & BIRTH
CONTROL
17. KNOWLEDGE OF PLACES TO SEND YOUTH FOR CONTRACEPTIVES
No
Yes
Refused to answer
65
(14%)
413
(86%)
5
(1%)
17A. NAMES OF PLACES MENTIONED TO SEND YOUTH FOR CONTRACEPTIVES:
Place 1
Place 2
Augusta Pregnancy Center, Board of Health, Clinics,
AIDS Counselor, Bell Terrace, Christ Community
County
DFCS-
Church, Church, Clinics, Community clinic, Court,
caseworker, Doctors Hospital, Drug stores, E. Mac
DFCS, Doctor's Office, Drug Stores, Eisenhower
Medical Center, Eisenhower hospital, Family doctor,
hospital, Family Doctor, Gas station, Grocery Store,
Health
Department,
CVS,
DFCS,
- 54 -
Family Gynecologist, Ft. Gordon /Hospital, MCG Parent,
Health center, Health department, Herself, Home,
Pediatrician,
Hospital clinics, Hospitals, MCG, Mother, OB/GYN,
Pharmacy,
Planned
Parenthood,
Pregnancy Center, Store, Teen Pregnancy Counter,
Parents,
Welfare Office
Pregnancy Care, Pregnancy Court, Prompt Care,
Rhema
Pediatrician,
Connections,
Planned
Parenthood,
Store, Wal-Mart,
Trinity
hospital , V.A, Youth Center
17B. REPORTED SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON PLACES TO SEND YOUTH FOR CONTRACEPTIVES
Friend
Place 1
Place 2
52
(13%)
30
(13%)
Flyer
30
(7%)
20
(8%)
School
11
(3%)
6
(3%)
Clinic
Relative
Other
(cousin,
aunt, etc.)
83
(20%)
21
(9%)
41
(10%)
19
(8%)
190
(47%)
141
(60%)
17C. REPORTS OF KNOWING WHERE SUCH PLACES ARE
Place 1
Place 2
Exactly
More or less
Or, not really
know
391
(95%)
225
(94%)
18
(4%)
11
(5%)
2
(1%)
3
(1%)
17D. REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOUTH NEED PARENTAL PERMISSION AT SUCH PLACES
Place 1
Place 2
No
Yes
Don’t know
196
(48%)
107
(45%)
149
(36%)
84
(35%)
65
(16%)
48
(27%)
17E. REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT STAFF WOULD SHARE INFORMATION WITH PARENTS ABOUT
YOUTHS’ VISITS AT SUCH PLACES
No
Yes
Don’t know
Place 1
Place 2
208
(51%)
124
(52%)
- 55 -
93
(23%)
54
(23%)
111
(27%)
61
(26%)
17F. REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOUTH WOULD NEED MONEY TO RECEIVE SERVICES AT SUCH
PLACES
Place 1
Place 2
No
Yes
Don’t know
220
(53%)
78
(32%)
105
(26%)
105
(43%)
87
(21%)
59
(24%)
17G. REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT CAREGIVERS WOULD SEND PARENTS TO SUCH PLACES FOR
SERVICES
Place 1
Place 2
No
Yes
Don’t know
43
(10%)
19
(8%)
361
(87%)
217
(90%)
9
(2%)
4
(2%)
17H. REASONS WHY CAREGIVERS WOULD NOT SEND YOUTH TO SUCH PLACES
1. I prefer my child go to our family doctor
Place 1
Place 2
31
(72%)
13
(68%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(5%)
2.
Don’t like the people who go there
3.
Don’t like the care they give
4.
Don’t like the location
5.
Don’t believe in birth control
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
6.
Don’t want child to be sexually active
10
(23%)
6
(32%)
7.
Something else:
7
(16%)
4
(21%)
18. ADVICE FOR A CHILD WHO BECAME PREGNANT OR IMPREGNATED SOMEONE ELSE
Abortion
Put baby up for
adoption
Keep baby
Depends
No Opinion
6
(1%)
13
(3%)
297
(62%)
143
(30%)
23
(5%)
- 56 -
19. CAREGIVERS WHO BELIEVE THEIR CHILDREN COULD TALK TO THEM ABOUT SEX
No
Yes
Not Sure
21
(4%)
425
(88%)
36
(8%)
20. CAREGIVERS WHO BELIEVE THEIR CHILDREN COULD TALK TO THEM ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL
No
Yes
Not Sure
20
(4%)
422
(88%)
40
(8%)
21. CAREGIVERS WHO BELIEVE THEIR CHILDREN COULD TALK TO THEM ABOUT PREGNANCY
No
Yes
Not Sure
33
(7%)
405
(84%)
44
(9%)
22. CAREGIVERS WHO REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY TALKED TO THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT
SEX
No
Yes
Not Sure
80
(17%)
395
(82%)
8
(2%)
22A. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNT OF WHO USUALLY STARTS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEX
You
Your child
322
(82%)
70
(18%)
22B. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNT OF WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEX TOOK PLACE IN
THE PAST YEAR
No
Yes
Not Sure
111
(27%)
268
(66%)
27
(7%)
- 57 -
22C. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNTS OF TOTAL TIME SPENT IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEX IN THE PAST
YEAR
Less than 5
minutes
5 to 15
Minutes
16 to 30
Minutes
31
Minutes to
1 hour
Between 1
and 2
hours
More than
2 hours
Can’t
estimate
5
(2%)
44
(17%)
56
(21%)
59
(22%)
31
(12%)
60
(22%)
12
(5%)
23. CAREGIVERS WHO REPORTED THAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY TALKED TO THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT
BIRTH CONTROL
No
Yes
Not Sure
147
(31%)
323
(67%)
9
(2%)
23A. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNT OF WHO USUALLY STARTS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL
You
Your child
283
(87%)
42
(13%)
23B. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNT OF WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL TOOK
PLACE IN THE PAST YEAR
No
Yes
Not Sure
80
(25%)
221
(68%)
23
(7%)
23C. LENGTH OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL
Less than 5
minutes
5 to 15
Minutes
16 to 30
Minutes
31
Minutes to
1 hour
Between 1
and 2
hours
More than
2 hours
Can’t
estimate
5
(2%)
44
(19%)
48
(21%)
45
(20%)
29
(13%)
45
(20%)
11
(5%)
24. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNTS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE TALKED TO OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS
OR ADULT MENTORS ABOUT SEX OR BIRTH CONTROL
No
Yes
Not Sure
126
(27%)
219
(46%)
131
(28%)
- 58 -
24A. RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS TO CHILD
107
(49%)
41
(19%)
24
(11%)
2
(1%)
4
(2%)
Parent
Older sister
Older brother
Stepmother
Stepfather
65
(30%)
32
(15%)
48
(22%)
6
(3%)
44
(20%)
Aunt
Uncle
Grandmother
Grandfather
Cousin
Other-Relative
OtherUnrelated
Refused
21
(10%)
48
(22%)
1
(1%)
24B. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNT OF WHETHER OR NOT CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER FAMILY
MEMBERS TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST YEAR
No
Yes
Not Sure
31
(14%)
157
(71%)
33
(15%)
25 & 26. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNTS OF DEGREE OF COMFORT IN DISCUSSING TOPICS RELATED TO
SEX WITH CHILDREN
Very
Somewhat
A little
Not at all
comfortable comfortable comfortable comfortable
No
Opinion
sex or sexual intercourse?
29
(6%)
42
(9%)
112
(23%)
295
(61%)
5
(1%)
birth control methods?
28
(6%)
43
(9%)
102
(21%)
302
(63%)
6
(1%)
27. CAREGIVERS’ REPORTS OF OTHER PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD WHOM YOUTH THEY SEE A LOT
No
Yes
152
(32%)
329
(68%)
27A. CAREGIVERS’ ACCOUNT OF WHETHER OR NOT OTHER PERSON GIVES SAME OR DIFFERENT
MESSAGE ABOUT SEX TO YOUTH
Same Message
Different Message
270
(83%)
57
(17%)
- 59 -
27B. PERSON MOST LIKELY TO DISAPPROVE OF CHILD HAVING SEX
You
Other Person
Both disapprove
95
(54%)
47
(27%)
35
(20%)
27C. PERSON YOUTH FINDS EASIER TO TALK TO ABOUT SEX
You
Other Person
101
(55%)
83
(45%)
27D. PERSON WHO WOULD BE MOST UPSET IF CHILD GOT PREGNANT OR IMPREGNATED SOMEONE
More upset than you
About as upset as you
Less upset than you
44
(24%)
114
(61%)
28
(15%)
- 60 -
FAITH COMMUNITY SURVEY
Results
- 61 -
FAITH COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
FAITH COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
PURPOSE/GOALS
A survey was administered to diverse members of the faith community to determine their thoughts
and opinions about teen pregnancy prevention in Richmond County.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The faith survey was adapted from a Philliber Research Associates tool. There was no accessible
electronic version of the tool available, so an electronic version was created and revised according to
suggestions by the G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and through review
of the tool for errors noted research team members. Revisions were completed by April 1, 2011.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
A demographic profile sheet was developed to complement the survey. The purpose of this sheet was
to provide general information about the survey respondent (e.g., their age, sex, racial/ethnic
affiliation, marital status, educational attainment, etc.). The demographic profile sheet was completed
by the professional researcher prior to beginning the survey.
SAMPLING SIZE OF FAITH SECTORS
The sample consisted of a diverse cross-section of Richmond County faith communities, including
representatives from the Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Christian (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal,
Episcopal, Presbyterian), Hindu, and Buddhist populations. A target number of 20 faith leaders were
recruited.
CHARACTERISTICS OF FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS
The respondents surveyed represented the entire spectrum of faith communities in Richmond County.
They are located in areas that are considered “pregnancy hotspots,” serve the priority populations,
have youth ministries, and serve a significant number of youth in their congregations. Although it was
understood that all representatives would not be able to meet each criteria because of their religious
affiliations, it was expected that they would have met at least one or two of the criteria indicated.
FAITH COMMUNITY RESPONDENTS
- 62 -
The respondents from this population were either high-standing members of their faith communities
(such as a board member) or leaders of their faith communities (such as a youth minister or pastor).
SELECTION AND TRAINING OF PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS
Training for professional researchers was held on April 26, 2011 in Augusta, GA from 12pm to 4pm
after the core advisory group meeting. There were three professional researchers initially selected to
interview faith community representatives. Follow-up training allowed professional researchers to gain
additional practice. Data collection for faith-community representatives began the week of May 9,
2011. A contact list of prospective interviewees was given to professional researchers to assist in the
data collection process.
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection started on May 5,, 2011 and ended on May 27, 2011.
COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS
Professional researchers were paid a $50 stipend of for attending the training session and $10 for
each survey completed.
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENTS
The respondents received a one-time $10 gift card for their participation in the survey.
- 63 -
FAITH COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
GENERAL RESULTS
FAITH LEADERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF HOW COMMON TEEN PREGNANCY IS
not very
common
pretty
common
very
common
we never or rarely
have a teen
pregnancy
1. Currently in your faith community
8
(40%)
4
(20%)
3
(15%)
5
(25%)
2. In terms of the broader community,
2
(10%)
6
(30%)
12
(60%)
0
(0%)
3. FAITH LEADERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TIMING OF SEX EDUCATION
too soon
about the right age
too late
5
(25%)
11
(55%)
4
(20%)
4. FAITH LEADERS’ VIEWS ON SEXUAL INFORMATION ABOUT PROTECTION NO MATTER ONE’S
SEXUAL ACTIVITY
should be given information
information only encourages them to have sex
19
(100%)
0
(0%)
5. FAITH LEADERS’ OPINIONS OF WHO SHOULD SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT SEX WITH YOUTH
parents should be the only ones sharing
information about sexuality
everyone has a role to play
3
(15%)
17
(85%)
- 64 -
6. NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEEN MEMBERS TO HEAR FAITH COMMUNITY'S VIEWS ON
SEXUALITY, CONTRACEPTIVE USE AND TEEN PREGNANCY IN THE PAST YEAR
no opportunity, these
topics are not discussed
at all
few opportunities
2
(11%)
some opportunities
2
(11%)
lots of opportunities
7
(37%)
8
(42%)
7. AREAS WHERE TEEN PREGNANCY RELATED TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE PAST YEAR
No
Yes
Not
Sure
A workshop experience or message
5
14
1
A church or Sabbath school lesson
(25%)
5
(70%)
12
(5%)
3
A youth group meeting
(25%)
2
(60%)
16
(15%)
2
An individual counseling session
(10%)
6
(80%)
12
(10%)
2
A group counseling session
(30%)
6
(60%)
12
(10%)
2
A group counseling meeting
(30%)
7
(60%)
8
(10%)
3
A meeting with subgroup of your faith community, like a woman's guild
(39%)
7
(44%)
11
(17%)
2
(35%)
6
(55%)
11
(10%)
2
(32%)
(58%)
(11%)
or parent's group
OTHER AREAS/OPPORTUNITIES SPECIFIED:
Youth Sunday Service, Youth Ministry Bible Study, Youth Ministry
Monthly, Women’s Prayer Group, Focus on teens at church picnic:
bring health dept., pajama praise, Back to School Rally, “Ladies with a
Vision” (group of girls ages 15 – 20), mini-conferences & trainings,
discussion
forums,
youth
leadership
team,
Non-profit:
Rhema
Connection, AIDS Awareness month, outreach in projects, teen nights
to discuss issues every other Friday, “True Love Waits”, workshops at
other faith communities, youth rap session monthly
- 65 -
8. TOPICS COVERED IN MEETINGS OR WORKSHOPS IN THE PAST YEAR?
Basic facts of human reproduction
8 (40%)
Values and decision making
19 (95%)
Handling peer pressure
20 (100%)
Resisting the pressure of the media
13 (65%)
Dating and relationships
16 (80%)
Abstinence
18 (90%)
Getting and using contraception
8 (40%)
The consequences of teenage pregnancy
17 (85%)
Marriage and live time commitments
19 (95%)
Other 1:
10 (50%)
3 (15%)
Other 2:
OTHER TOPICS SPECIFIED:
Annual Women’s conference, biblical perspective of sex, emphasize consequences of actions, hold series on
hip-hop, homosexuality, STDs, puberty, sexual violence / abuse, date rape and control, students from MCG
come talk about teen health, teenage part-time jobs, involve in activities, nursing students on Wednesday
youth night every March, work with young girls
9. FAITH COMMUNITIES’ ENCOURAGEMENT OF PARENTS TO TALK THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT SEX AND
MORALITY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE FAITH TRADITION
No
Yes, in individual sessions
Yes, in group sessions
3
14
(70%)
12
(60%)
(15%)
10. FAITH COMMUNITIES’ SPONSORING OF WORKSHOPS FOR PARENTS TO LEARN HOW TO TALK WITH
THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT SEXUALITY
No
Yes
Not Sure
14
5
1
(70%)
(25%)
(5%)
IF YES, HOW RECENTLY?
WORKSHOPS DESCRIBED:
RANGE: 4 years ago - April 2011
consortium for church addressed as sub-topic, mini-conf: various topics incl. teen pregnancy & parent session
during conf, spoke with parents about how to talk with children about sexuality and issues involving teens,
within context of Sunday School, workshop for parents in conjunction with annual youth conference, workshop:
psychologist did role play of worst case scenario
- 66 -
11. FAITH COMMUNITIES’ SPONSORING OF MENTORING OPPORTUNITIES BETWEEN ADULTS AND
TEENAGERS
No
Yes, but informally
Yes, a formal
program
Not sure
4
(20%)
9
(45%)
8
(40%)
0
(0%)
MENTORING PROGRAMS DESCRIBED:
see a need then meet it…small congregation & we know each other, Boys to Men, Girls Chat, Daughters of
Ester at Community Center, Weed & Seed on Barton Chapel, developing relationships, group (youth)
mentoring, ladies mentor girls, men mentor boys (x3), meet as a group or individually, men assigned to youth
with parameters and informally mentor, mentoring academy: teens meet w/ mentors 2x a week, planning to
start, prayer, responsible teens to work with others, youth dept. meeting monthly now to help youth, teens can
talk w/ selected mentors “Rod of Obedience”: person with “rod” can speak / talk about anything they want to,
community service is part of goals, teens w/ hope in collaboration w/ comm. elementary and middle schools,
training days & mind conf – believe in intergenerational activities, trips where youth & adults are together,
women’s mentor ministry, Gentlemen for God, informal frequently youth night, youth church, informal
conversations, young men partner w/ boys, young ladies talk w/ young girls
12. FAITH COMMUNITIES’ SPONSORING OF SUPERVISED GROUP ACTIVITIES (E.G. A YOUTH GROUP,
PRAYER CIRCLES, AFTER SCHOOL HOMEWORK ASSISTANCE OR FIELDTRIPS) FOR TEENAGERS
No
Yes, occasionally
Yes, regularly
Not sure
0
(0%)
7
(35%)
14
(70%)
0
(0%)
GROUP ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED:
rd
3 Sunday is youth day, take on field trips, free summer camp in June, youth ministry meet monthly for training
on how to conduct services, tutoring services for youth in community, Camp Hope (summer), bridging (afterschool), dance groups, music, comm. outreach, sharing faith, field trips (Myrtle Beach), elementary: Children in
th
th
Action, discuss safety, drugs, peer pressure in grades 6 – 12 > growing youth group, activities 1 – 2 months
fun and round table discussion of social topics, field trips regularly, Statesboro Carowinds (x2), field trips to
Gospel Fest in park, Friday Night Live every month, gospel events, field trips: Atlanta, MLK Center, CNN
Center, Black History in Alabama, fishing, baseball > young men / ladies have activities, Universal Circus in
Columbus, summer tutorial program, children & youth ministries, occasional workshops, outings, sporting
events, field trips, once a month youth activities like pizza, movies, bowling, birthday celebrations, take children
to colleges, take young people to basketball games in Atlanta, teen nights, Sunday afternoon movie nights,
retreats 3x a year, youth group volunteers at soup kitchen quarterly, fellowship of churches – comm. fellowship,
youth groups, bible study lessons: topics chosen by teens, amusement parks, spiritual enrichment, Youth
Sunday (2
nd
th
& 4 ), retreats, ushers
- 67 -
13. FAITH COMMUNITIES’ INVOLVEMENT IN OUTREACH FOR TEENS WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED WITH A
FAITH COMMUNITY
No
Yes, but informally
Yes, a formal
program
Not sure
3
(15%)
9
(45%)
9
(45%)
0
(0%)
OUTREACH DESCRIBED:
Church without walls: youth deacons, trustees reach out, Prison Ministry, door-to-door outreach, tent meetings,
attendance drives, food program, Broad Street Ministries, evangelism & outreach (x2), free summer camp,
gather at comm. center, use food as bait, Facebook (x2): use to invite other to events, music hip-hop outreach,
st
partner with Augusta Housing Authority, invite friends to bring friends, River of Life: 1 week in June > comm.
service, talk with teens outside church community, technology-mission group, youth ministry-foot soldiers, text
messages, VBS, fliers, WOM, car wash
14. FAITH COMMUNITIES’ COLLABORATION WITH OTHER FAITH COMMUNITIES, NEIGHBORHOOD
ORGANIZATIONS, OR INSTITUTIONS THAT WORK WITH YOUNG PEOPLE IN ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED
ABOVE
No
Yes
Not Sure
3
(15%)
17
(85%)
0
(0%)
COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED:
Broad Street Ministries, choir (youth) anniversary, connect w/ churches (x4) & schools: Cross Creek, Glenn
Hills, Laney, Housing Authority: outreach & Garden City Rescue Mission, invite others to join activities, minitheater, other churches (x2): Greater Young Zion, New Hope, partner with businesses & groups in the
community, River of Life, True Love Waits, inter-faith hospitality, South Augusta CDC (Community Development
Center), teens w/ hope involves educational comm., work with MCG School of Nursing, youth convention w/
state district & nation, Youth Directors Alliance, 3 satellite churches: May Park, Grovetown, Golden Camp,
youth field trips
15. FAITH LEADERS’ WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN SELECTED ACTIVITIES
(a) organize or sponsor youth group activities such as field trips and community
service?
(b) encourage adults in your church or religious organization to serve as
mentors?
- 68 -
No
Yes
Not
Sure
0
(0%)
19
(95%)
1
(5%)
1
(5%)
19
(95%)
0
(0%)
(c) support organizations in the community working to reduce teen pregnancy?
(d) teach parents in your faith community how to talk to their children about
sexuality and how it relates to their faith?
(e) work with other faith leaders to encourage support for teen pregnancy
prevention efforts?
1
(5%)
1
(5%)
17
(85%)
19
(95.0%)
2
(10%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
20
(100%)
0
(0%)
16. FAITH LEADERS’ ACCOUNT OF USEFUL ACTIVITIES FOR FAITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS?
Information or a workshop on how to promote parent-
19
(95%)
17
(85%)
20
(100%)
19
child communication about sexuality related issues
(95%)
Information or a workshop on faith-based curricula on
teen pregnancy
Information or a workshop on current trends in teen
pregnancy
Information or a workshop on successful strategies
for preventing teen pregnancy
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT FAITH COMMUNITY RELATING TO TEEN PREGNANCY:
A lot of kids say parents don’t listen & they go to others; teens need participation & activity to be part of; need
to listen, need encouragement; abortion & effects; are programs available specifically to support family when
teen gets pregnant? Volunteer to provide support; Broadway on cutting edge when reaching out to teens; we
understand impact of teen pregnancy on their lives; Augusta has nothing for teens to do; no teen life; not goals
for teens & support; communication most important thing; should be brought up with middle & high school
Sunday school lessons; currently working with Boys & Girls Clubs to reduce teen pregnancy; primarily older
adults / grandparents raising grandchildren; providing parents with tools to communicate with teens;
Tabernacle would love to have a program that we could invite parents and youth to; try to instill: put God first &
in doing so, will give them the right mindset to abstain, need to be faithful to God in addition to being faithful to
church > church can’t see you all the time but God can; we believe in anything we can give to help a young
life, we need to allow children to be children & not push them too early to be adult; would like to organize
forum where churches can collaborate on matters dealing with sex & sexuality, teen pregnancy, abstinence,
birth control, and other social issues; would like to see results from initiative; would support abstinence & for
info about reproductive health but not give them permission to have pre-marital sex; youth dir & asst youth dir
want to bring in others to address issue
- 69 -
BUSINESS SURVEY
Results
- 70 -
BUSINESS COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
BUSINESS COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA
COLLECTION METHODS
PURPOSE/GOALS
A survey was administered to representatives of various businesses to determine their thoughts and
opinions about teen pregnancy prevention in Richmond County.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The business survey was adapted from a Philliber Research Associates tool. There was no
accessible electronic version of the tool available, so an electronic version was created and revised
according to suggestions by the G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and
through review of the tool for errors noted by community researchers and other research team
members. Revisions were complete by April 1, 2011.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
A demographic profile sheet was developed to complement the survey. The purpose of this sheet was
to provide general information about the survey respondent (e.g., their age, sex, racial/ethnic
affiliation, marital status, educational attainment, etc.). The demographic profile sheet was completed
by the professional researcher prior to beginning the survey.
SAMPLING SIZE OF BUSINESS SECTORS
The sample for this group consisted of representatives from various sectors of the business
community. A target number of representatives from 23 businesses were recruited.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BUSINESSES
Three main sectors of the business community were represented in the assessment: entertainment
businesses (movie theaters, skating rinks, bowling alleys, and newspaper), fast food restaurants, and
shopping mall stores. Businesses were located in areas that were considered to be “pregnancy
hotspots,” and they serve and/or employ youth from within the community.
- 71 -
SELECTION AND TRAINING OF PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS
Training for professional researchers was held on April 26, 2011 in Augusta, GA from 12pm to 4pm
after the core advisory group meeting. There were three professional researchers initially selected to
interview business employees. Follow-up training allowed professional researchers to gain additional
practice. Data collection of businesses began the week of May 9, 2011. A contact list of prospective
interviewees was given to professional researchers to assist in the data collection process.
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection started on May 5, 2011 and ended on May 27, 2011.
COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHERS
Professional researchers were paid a $50 stipend of for attending the training session and $10 for
each survey completed.
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENTS
Respondents received a one-time $10 gift card for their participation in the survey.
- 72 -
BUSINESS COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
GENERAL RESULTS
1. BUSINESSES’ HIRING OF YOUTH
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
4
(17%)
18
(78%)
1
(4%)
0
(0%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ON YOUTH HIRING:
Age not an issue w/ employment…hire all kinds; hire at 16 (x7); hire at 17 (x3); certain jobs for certain ages;
barber begins at 18…cleaning ages 10 – 16; used to have young people but economy went bad and had to let
them go (x2); would considering hiring youth when business picks back up
2. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO DEVELOP MENTORING PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
7
(30%)
14
(61%)
0
(0%)
2
(9%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ON YOUTH MENTORING:
Anything is possible; have done that w/ autistic child; do that with church (x2); mentor to those who come into
shop but not in community; no problem participating in talks; tried to but didn’t work…willing to participate if
program worked correctly; considering working with a couple of schools; “would love to”; donates leftovers to
homeless shelters & charity
No: already mentors
Not sure: would need more information (x6); have to clear through corporate; do not have the capacity through
current employment
3. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO SPONSOR AN ACTIVITY THAT PROMOTES PARENT-CHILD
COMMUNICATION ABOUT SEXUALITY AND PREGNANCY
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
7
(30%)
12
(52%)
0
(0%)
4
(17%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WILLINGNESS TO SPONSOR ACTIVITY:
Yes: Believes this should begin at home…work with school in not allowing youth to dance close while skating or
sit in each other’s lap; can use outside area for meetings; no time but if company provide time would be ok;
willing to have programs at salon & have speakers come in; would sponsor venue / speaker; sponsorship not a
problem for activity
- 73 -
No: Movie theater & unable to do that; corporate won’t allow (x2)
Not sure: need more info (x2); have to ask district mgr for sponsorship; have to clear with owner (x2)
4A. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS FOR
COMMUNITY YOUTH SUCH AS SPONSORING TUTORING OR SCHOLARSHIPS
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
5
(22%)
9
(39%)
0
(0%)
9
(39%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT:
Yes: Already do that (x3); tutors (x2); feels education is important
No: can’t afford (x2)
Not sure: must ask owner / corporate (x10)
4B. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE OTHER TYPES OF SUPPORT (E.G., IN-KIND DONATION,
STAFF TIME)
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
4
(18%)
15
(68%)
1
(5%)
2
(9%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE OTHER SUPPORT:
Yes: can volunteer time with proper notice; can donate time / building as long as no party booked with proper
notice; employees can do on off day; small party / event: can do at local level; in-kind donation; would
volunteer time, discounted advertisement
No: business too bad right now (x2); can’t volunteer others w/o their consent
Not sure: Depends on how much; need more info; must be cleared by owner (x3); up to staff to decide
5. BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES’ WILLINGNESS TO SERVE ON COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
12
(52%)
10
(48%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WILLINGNESS TO SERVE ON CAG:
Yes: Absolutely (x3); open to joining but may not like answers
No: no time (x4); does not like to make long-term commitments (x2); other commitments (x2)
Not sure: need more info
- 74 -
6. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT INITIATIVE EVENTS WITH REFRESHMENTS/
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR REFRESHMENTS
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
2
(9%)
16
(74%)
1
(4%)
3
(14%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WILLINGNESS TO CONTRIBUTE:
Yes: all types of refreshments can be given; as long as event small (<50 people); depends on size of group;
can donate breads / pastries left at end of day; yes if involved with activity
No: business too bad right now; cannot donate food items
Not sure: has to be approved first (x4); need more info (x2)
7. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO SERVE YOUTH
No
Yes
Maybe
Not Sure
23
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT WILLINGNESS TO SERVE YOUTH:
Yes: 25% of clients; 40% of clients; all ages welcome but can’t buy rated R tickets w/o adult & can’t attend
movie after 9pm due to curfew; almost all business is youth except adult skate on Sunday; 35% of clients ages
15 – 19; some teens but youth <15 & their parents; 50% of clients teens due to free wifi; 85% youth; creating a
program for youth writers for the newspaper, as well as the Hola award and provide a scholarship.
8. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW ON-SITE CONDOM DISTRIBUTION
No
Yes
Maybe
Not Sure
15
(65%)
4
(17%)
0
(0%)
4
(17%)
FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT CONDOM DISTRIBUTION:
Please explain your reason for this answer.
Yes: Teaches protection & that’s a good thing;
No: Not the kind of thing he wants in his restaurant; company does not allow (x4); encourages youth (x2); don’t
want to offend older customers but want to help the cause; would look bad; youth should practice
abstinence…wait until marriage, staff always out in the street and don’t want the youth to come and office is
closed.
Not sure: doesn’t think manager would allow but could ask; must be cleared first (x5)
- 75 -
9. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW ADVERTISING OF INITIATIVE EVENTS
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
3
(13%)
14
(61%)
0
(0%)
6
(26%)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Yes: Absolutely (x2); as long as not too big (could be 8x10 piece of paper); depends on what they say; has
st
community bulletin where it can be placed; usually published on 1 Thursday of the month
No: company doesn’t allow outside advertisement
Not sure: corporate has contract with national advertising company…have to get approval (x4)
10. BUSINESSES’ WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW ADVERTISING OF FREE CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
7
(30%)
9
(39%)
0
(0%)
7
(30%)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Yes: has community bulletin where it can be placed
No: Against faith; company doesn’t allow outside advertisement; crowd is young and should not be able to get
this everywhere; youth should practice abstinence…wait until marriage
Not sure: depends on what they say; have to get approved by corporate / owner (x5)
11. BUSINESSES’/REPRESENTATIVES’ ABILITY TO PROVIDE INTRODUCTIONS TO LOCAL POLITICAL
LEADERS AND FUNDERS
No
Yes
Sometimes
Not Sure
18
(78%)
2
(9%)
1
(4%)
2
(9%)
Comments:
Yes / sometimes: Come back Monday @ 4pm; call back after Thursday; sister on RCBOE; editor of paper
knows all political leaders
No: don’t know any (x3); not on hand right now
Not sure: perhaps owner could; wants to speak to them first
- 76 -
12. KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER WAYS BUSINESSES COULD HELP SUPPORT TEEN PREGNANCY
PREVENTION
No
Yes
Maybe
Not Sure
18
(78%)
4
(17%)
0
(0%)
1
(4%)
COMMENTS:
Yes: Bathrooms great place for posters, condoms, etc.; building self-esteem is key to preventing
pregnancy…St. Mary’s HS has wonderful program; education in school…mindset should be there because they
spend most of time there…should be done under supervision maybe assembly; government needs to look at
policy on welfare to take away dollars if women continue to have children; make sure teens aware of
consequences; Kenneth very active: sponsors back-to-school event (free haircuts, barrettes for girls, school
supplies); would hand out info & condoms as individual but not as employee representing company unless
cleared through corporate
- 77 -
PUBLIC OFFICIAL SURVEY
Results
- 78 -
PUBLIC OFFICIAL SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
PUBLIC OFFICIAL SURVEY DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
PURPOSE/GOALS
Public officials and policy makers were surveyed as part of the community needs assessment to better
understand their perspectives on teen pregnancy, prevention efforts in the community, and support for
various policy options related to sex education (ranging from abstinence-until-marriage promotion to
comprehensive sex education).
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The public official survey was adapted from a Philliber Research Associates tool. There was no
accessible electronic version of the tool, so an electronic version was created and revised according
to suggestions by the G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and through
review of the tool for errors noted by research team members. Revisions were complete by April 1,
2011.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
A demographic profile sheet was developed to complement the survey. The purpose of this sheet was
to provide general information about the survey respondent (e.g., their age, sex, racial/ethnic
affiliation, marital status, educational attainment, etc.). The demographic profile sheet was completed
by the assessment team researcher prior to beginning the survey.
RESEARCHER RECRUITMENT
No community or professional researchers were trained to administer this survey tool. Elected official
surveys were conducted by the needs assessment team along with Mary Beth Pierucci, Senior Policy
Analyst & Trainer for G-CAPP. All surveys were conducted in-person and no consent forms were
necessary.
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection began on April 10, 2011 and concluded on June 10, 2011.
- 79 -
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT
At the time of recruitment, Mary Beth Pierucci was newly hired and based in Augusta to work with
elected officials in Richmond County. Through a diligent recruitment strategy which included e-mailing
all potential participants and following up with phone calls, she led the effort in soliciting officials to
participate in the community needs assessment.
COMPENSATION FOR RESEARCHERS
Because the needs assessment team collected these data, no compensation beyond salary was
provided.
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT
To avoid the possibility that payment to respondents may be considered bribery, no compensation was
provided.
- 80 -
PUBLIC OFFICIALS SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
PUBLIC OFFICIALS DEMOGRAPHICS BASED ON SURVEY QUESTIONS 8-11
8. ROLE OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL
Educator
State legislator
Local official
Other elected official
Legislative staff
Advocate
Other:_________________________________
0
(0%)
5
(31%)
8
(50%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
3
(19%)
0
(0 %)
9. DESIGNATED REGION OF JURISDICTION
Not focused on any particular area
Local community
Region of the state
Statewide
Other: _______________________________
0
(0%)
11
(69%)
3
(19%)
8
(50%)
0
(0%)
GENDER
Male
Female
12
(75%)
4
(25%)
- 81 -
RACE/ETHNIC AFFILIATION
African-American
Alaska Native/American Indian
Asian American/Pacific Islander
(From:___________________________________)
Latino/Hispanic
(From:___________________________________)
Middle Eastern
(From:___________________________________)
White/European
Other: _______________________________
9
(56%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0%)
7
(44%)
0
(0%)
PUBLIC OFFICIALS SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
GENERAL RESULTS
1. OFFICIALS’ RANKINGS OF TOP THREE YOUTH-RELATED ISSUES BELIEVED TO BE MOST
IMPORTANT TO CONSTITUENTS
Child abuse/neglect
Coordination of Services
for Youth
HIV/STD Prevention
Health care for Youth
Crime and Violence
Homeless/Runaway
Youth
Drug/Alcohol Use
Juvenile Justice
Foster Care Services
#1 ranking
#2 ranking
#3 ranking
21
(13%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
10
(63%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4
(25%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
3
(19%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
- 82 -
Education
Sex Education
Teen Pregnancy
Youth Development
Other: Obesity
3
(19%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
3
(19%)
2
(13%)
4
(25%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(19%)
1
(6%)
5
(31%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
2. OFFICIALS LEVELS OF SUPPORT FOR F POLICY OPTIONS RELATED TO TEENAGE PREGNANCY
PREVENTION
Currently the state funds adolescent health
and youth development programs that
promote health education in communities
throughout Georgia. These programs
include teen clinics; abstinence education;
drug and alcohol prevention education,
adolescent reproductive health services;
parent education seminars; and training
programs designed to increase community
awareness about teen pregnancy. Would
you support increased state funding for
these programs?
Georgia law currently requires public
schools to provide sex education classes
that emphasize the value of abstinence from
sex. Local school systems may choose to
include information on contraception and the
prevention of sexually transmitted diseases
in their courses.
Would you support a school policy that
offered age-appropriate comprehensive
sexuality education programs that include
teaching the benefits of abstinence AND
providing information about contraceptives
and sexually transmitted infection
prevention in Richmond County?
Would you support a school policy that
offered abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs that focus on encouraging teens
Not
Supportive
A little
supportive
Somewhat
Supportive
Very
Supportive
1
(6%)
2
(13%)
2
(19%)
9
(63%)
0
(0%)
4
(25%)
4
(25%)
8
(50%)
5
(31%)
1
(6%)
3
(19%)
7
(44%)
- 83 -
not to engage in any sexual activity until
marriage in Richmond County?
Would you support a school policy that
offered BOTH an age-appropriate
comprehensive sexuality education program
and an abstinence-only-until-marriage
program in Richmond County?
How supportive are you of having ageappropriate comprehensive sexuality
education programs integrate into afterschool and other community based
programs?
How supportive are you in having
abstinence-only-until –marriage programs
integrated into after-school and other
community based programs?
How supportive are you of developing
continuing education in adolescent sexuality
for professionals and teachers who serve
adolescents in our community?
Do you support the current Georgia law that
allows teenagers to receive confidential
family planning services without a parent or
guardian present? These services include
counseling on the value of abstinence,
education on sexually transmitted diseases,
and provision of contraceptives?
[For those who oppose] Research has
consistently shown that teenagers are less
likely to seek out family planning and
contraceptive services when they are
required to tell their parents or guardians
about it. Knowing this, how supportive are
you of the current state law that allows
teenagers to receive confidential family
planning services?
1
(7%)
0
(0%)
4
(29%)
9
(64%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
8
(57%)
6
(43%)
1
(7%)
2
(13%)
3
(20%)
8
(53%)
0
(0%)
1
(7%)
3
(20%)
11
(73%)
7
(47%)
3
(20%)
2
(13%)
3
(20%)
6
(86%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3 - 4. TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION/YOUTH DEVELOPMENT MEASURES OFFICIALS OR
LOCAL/STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE TAKEN IN THE PAST YEAR
Introduced or supported legislation
Teen pregnancy
prevention
Youth development
2
(18%)
2
(13%)
- 84 -
Requested or conducted a special study
Held a special hearing or town meeting
Started or changed a program
Applied for funding
Involved young people in your efforts
Other:
Please specify
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
2
(27%)
5
(31%)
2
(13%)
4
(25%)
8
(50%)
Susan Swanson - CPC trying
to get abstinence-only until
marriage curriculum introduced
into schools. It didn't meet state
requirements. She spread
falsehoods & held protests.
Never rec'd so many phone
calls before saying that
Planned Parenthood was
associated with this whole
thing.
Change to juvenile criminal
code; support: Salvation Army,
Kroc Center, YCA, Youth
Leadership RC, Rape Crisis
(Adam & Ashley do 3-day
training), Child Enrichment
Talked about teen pregnancy
in our schools. Interested &
had statistics presented on the
issue.
CPC curriculum
Clinic inside Glenn Hills HS, all
health services, if child
becomes pregnant; dental not
open
Fund RCHD ($200K/year), arts
council, afterschool programs
@ recreational centers,
summer programs; thinks
funds part of extension
services of 4H; no major
budget slashes to date but will
cut this year; little fluctuation in
economy - operate no matter
what: Ft. Gordon, MCG,
Savannah River; entire budget:
$120 million with $9 million
deficit
Internship program for his
program graduates
Parks & recreational: youth
services; $9M deficit; difficulty
funding; Mock (Tennis)
Academy; Tom Beck; starting
to see mutual collaboration
among organizations &
traditional silos; right now:
huge amount of overlay
Programming re: graduation
- 85 -
rates; develop special needs
students. Getting info about
students throughout school
year; interventions for students
who are falling behind. Budget
cuts in 21st Century and Bell
Program. $70M to cut in 2yrs in
state funds. SPLOTS wants for
personnel
started program: Title 1 federal high poverty school - to
provide extra programs to
these schools has been cut /
expect more cuts; afterschool to receive extra tutoring,
homework assistance - has
been cut; applied for funding:
couple of grants on youth
development; 21st century
afterschool grants has been
approved and will; Boys & Girls
Club in close proximity to
school have a partnership with
them.
Support Family Connections
8pported teen programs
5. SPECIFIC AGE GROUP(S) TARGETED BY OFFICIALS’ OR LOCAL/STATE GOVERNMENTS’ EFFORTS
Not focused on any particular group
Children (12 and under)
Adolescents (13-19)
Adults (20-64)
Seniors (65 and over)
6
(38%)
5
(31%)
10
(63%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
- 86 -
6. SPECIFIC RACIAL/ETHNIC GROUP(S) TARGETED BY OFFICIALS’ OR LOCAL/STATE GOVERNMENTS’
EFFORTS
Asian American/Pacific Islander (From which countries, if
known:_________________________)
Latino/Hispanic (From which countries, if
known:_________________________)
Middle Eastern (From which countries, if
known:_________________________)
8
(57%)
0
(0%)
1
(7%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
White/European (From which countries, if
known:_________________________)
3
(21%)
Other: _______________________________
2
(14%)
African-American
Alaska Native/American Indian
7. ADVICE FOR LEGISLATORS TO MAINTAIN THE LOCAL/STATE GOVERNMENTS’ INVESTMENT IN
TEENAGE PREGNANCY PREVENTION DURING CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS:
Coordinate with other services & providers in existence; prevent duplication of effort & get message out to
more people
Establish & implement curfew; no time that teens can run by themselves all day; more supervision; kids don't
have a clue on how to build productive relationships
Follow guidelines - to get everybody involved and working together and seeing how much $ we spent - but
when everybody not on board you have a breakdown. Target people where they are.
Have a lot of programs BUT are they the best ones? like tax exemptions on books...don't work...ok, let's fix
them; need to do a better job of fixing current programs
how maintained based on demand of public; rely on public to share concerns; listen to constituents but
Constituents have to speak up
Look at big picture; invest on front end (ex. think 20 years down the road); excited that Gov. Deal focusing on
childhood obesity (beyond his term vs. politicians focus on quick fix / plug a hole); 20% poverty rate & 3rd
highest non-profits per capita = disconnect here as $ isn't making it into communities of need
Low on totem pole; can’t even fund schools; really tough
Major support: education; RC state budget cut of $70M; academic scores have increased but could have even
more with better support of teachers; education yield better decisions
Needs to be more; in business, work twice as hard to maintain; stay at cusp of what's new; conscientious effort
of currency / see where we are & what needs to be done; constant engagement with subject matter experts
Parent education-how to teach morals and values; children are what they see and live
- 87 -
Prevention efforts will save money in long run
Speak of importance; provide necessary funding now; costly early on; later on, if reduce, cost savings;
mothers can continue education & give back to society instead of relying on it; political will: if want to do, can
make a way; losing too many children as it is
Stay involved; fund it; to Nathan Deal: not to do away with it; reach out to legislators
Strong support maintenance, PH has had more budget cuts than school system (lost a lot of nurses); no extra funding
coming in; teen pregnancy rates among younger ages; need to start efforts in elementary vs. middle schools.
Tend not to advise legislators; encourage to set own priorities & live with them; people know what they need to
do; need to hold the line rather than reduce
Try to maintain current funding for programs
- 88 -
CLINICAL PROVIDERS SURVEY
Results
- 89 -
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
PURPOSE/GOALS
The purpose of the clinical provider survey is to collect data on reproductive health services and the
distribution of contraceptives in Richmond County.
Specifically, the survey was designed to
determine the portion of Richmond Co. youth that are served, when they are served, what outreach, if
any, is performed to appeal to younger patients, and what challenges, if any, facilities face in
providing services to their target population.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The survey was adapted from a Philliber Research Associates tool. There was no accessible
electronic version of the tool available, so an electronic version was created and revised according to
suggestions by the G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and through review
of the tool for errors noted by research team members. The survey was revised based on the unique
purpose and needs of this assessment, and was evaluated for “readability.”
After the survey was developed, the CDC team developed a survey tool for community agencies,
which was released on July 1, 2011. Data collection for this wave was delayed until the updated
survey tool was released and adapted for the Richmond County community needs assessment.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
Individual data was collected from staff at clinical service providers’ offices to gain an understanding
of staff members’ educational backgrounds and work experience. A demographic profile sheet was
also developed to complement the survey. The purpose of this sheet was to provide general
information about the survey respondent (e.g., their age, sex, racial/ethnic affiliation, marital status,
educational attainment, etc.). The demographic profile sheet was completed by the assessment team
researcher prior to beginning the survey.
RESEARCHER RECRUITMENT
For the purposes of this survey, data collection was conducted by the Messages of
Empowerment assessment team. No additional researchers were hired to survey this group.
- 90 -
The assessment team met with representatives at each clinic for two hours to explain the needs
assessment survey and to review each question within the survey instrument. Each clinic was
responsible for populating the tool with their individual clinic’s data and submitting the completed
survey back to the assessment team within two weeks of the meeting. The assessment team
then met with each clinic’s representatives for one hour to discuss challenges experienced in
completing the survey tool.
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection began after each clinic’s two-hour meeting. Each clinic was a given two weeks to
submit the survey, and data collection to concluded on September 13, 2011.
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT PLAN AND PROCESS
All five clinical service providers who served as collaborative partners for this initiative were asked to
complete the survey. The assessment team also attempted to recruit five non-partner clinical service
providers to complete the survey; non-partner clinics did not respond, and no data were collected
from this group.
The five clinical service providers who submitted data are:

Richmond County Health Dept Family Planning Clinic Site 1

South Augusta Health Dept Family Planning

Planned Parenthood Southeast

Asociacion Latina de Servicios del CSRA (Alas)

Medical College of Georgia, Women’s Health & Augusta Regional Perinatal Center
Informed consent was not necessary for this group of participants.
COMPENSATION FOR RESEARCHERS
Because the needs assessment team collected this group’s data, no compensation beyond salary
was provided.
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENTS
Completion of this survey was undertaken in conjunction with clinical partners’ memoranda of
understanding. Upon successful completion of the survey, each clinical partner was issued a $5,000
stipend directly from G-CAPP.
- 91 -
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
CLINIC DEMOGRAPHICS
The five clinical partners whom completed this survey identified themselves as one or more of the
following types of health resources: family medical practice, community health center, county health
department, “free clinic,” publicly-funded family planning institution, and/or hospital-based ambulatory
care (teaching) institution. The clinics serve urban, suburban, and rural populations around Richmond
County. All clinics reported having access to the internet for staff members, and most clinics reported
having an on-site pharmacy that dispenses hormonal contraceptives. Four out of six of the clinics
participated in the federal 340B drug discount program, and only half of the clinics reported having
implemented systems to facilitate third party payers for contraceptive and reproductive health
services provided. At the time of the survey, two of the clinics did not use an electronic medical
records (EMR) system. Of the remaining four clinics, staff used the either M&M or the Cerner system
to electronically record and store patients’ medical information.
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
STAFFING STRUCTURE
7. CLINICAL STAFFING STRUCTURE
Health Center Employees with
Direct Patient Contact
Physicians (MDs/DOs)
Physician Assistants
Midwives
Advanced Practice Clinicians
Advance Practice Nurses
Registered Nurses
Medical Assistants
Health Educators
Social Workers
All full time equivalent
employees at the
health center
All full time equivalent
employees who provide direct
service to adolescents
0.2 - 24.0
(avg: 7.4)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0
0.2 - 20.0
(avg: 5.7)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0 - 4.5
(avg: 2.6)
0.0 - 2.0
(avg: 1.1)
0.0 - 4.0
(avg: 1.3)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0 - 4.5
(avg: 2.2)
0.0 - 2.0
(avg: 0.7)
0.0 - 4.0
(avg: 1.3)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
- 92 -
Mental Health Practitioners
0.0
0.0
Pharmacists
0.0
0.0
0.1 - 9.0
(avg: 3.6)
0.5 - 6.0
(avg: 2.0)
0.8 - 45.0
(avg: 16.8)
0.1 - 9.0
(avg: 3.2)
0.5 - 6.0
(avg: 1.9)
0.8 - 41.0
(avg: 14.3)
Front Desk/Clerical
Other (specify:
)
Total:
8. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING STRUCTURE
All full-time
Administrative staff with no direct
patient contact
equivalent
employees at the
health center
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.2)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.2)
0.0 - 1.8
(avg: 0.7)
0.0 - 2.0
(avg: 0.8)
0.0 - 3.0
(avg: 1.1)
Fiscal (Budget)
Information technology (IT)
Health Center Manager
Other (specify:
)
Total:
No. of full-time equivalent
employees who provide direct
service to adolescents
0.0 - 0.25
(avg. 0.05)
0.0 - 1.0
(avg: 0.3)
0.0 - 2.0
(avg: 0.5)
0.0 - 2.0
(avg: 0.6)
0.0 - 3.0
(avg: 0.7)
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
HEALTH INSURANCE BILLING PRACTICES AND
REVENUE
9.
PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE (FOR ALL PATIENTS) PRACTICE RECEIVES FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
Source of Revenue
% of total revenue
1% - 12%
Medicaid Fee for Service
(avg: 8%)
0.0%
Medicaid Family Planning Waiver
31% - 33%
Medicaid Managed Care
(avg: 32%)
7% - 55%
Commercial Insurance
(avg: 29%)
<1% - 75%
Sliding Fee Scale (Patient pays for a portion of the
- 93 -
(avg: 38%)
charges out-of-pocket)
0% - 75%
Full Pay (Patient pays for the full cost of service out-
(avg: 44%)
of-pocket)
0% - 75%
Grant Revenue (example: Title X, 330, Private
Foundation)
(avg: 41%)
Federally Qualified Health Center or FQHC look-alike
0% - 100%
Wrap- Around Funds
(avg: 33%)
Other [Please describe:
2% – 10%
donations ]
(avg: 5%)
Total revenue for all sources
100%
10. PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE PRACTICE RECEIVES FOR ADOLESCENT VISITS (AGES 15-19 YEARS) BY
SOURCE
Source of Revenue
%
8% - 32%
Medicaid Fee for Service
(avg: 21%)
0%- 32%
Medicaid Family Planning Waiver
(avg: 16.2%)
24%- 59%
Medicaid Managed Care
(avg: 39%)
1%- 67%
Commercial Insurance
(avg: 30%)
0%
Medicaid Family Planning Waiver
<1% - 67%
Sliding Fee Scale (Patient pays for a portion of the
(34%)
charges out-of-pocket)
67%
Full Pay (Patient pays for the full cost of service outof-pocket)
No Pay (services are covered by grants like Title X,
67% - 74%
330, Private Foundation, etc.)
(avg: 71%)
0%
Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) (WrapAround Funds)
Other [Please describe:
100%
donations ]
Total for all revenue sources
100%
- 94 -
11. PERCENTAGE OF PATIENTS WHO ARE UNINSURED
Patient Population
%
All Patients
0% -85%
(22%)
Adolescent patients aged 15-19 years
0% -13%
(4%)
12. FEES CHARGED FOR ADOLESCENT FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
3
(50%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
0
(0%)
No, for either males nor females (skip to question 14)
Yes, fees for male adolescents only
Yes, fees for female adolescents only
Yes, on a sliding scale for all adolescents
Yes, regular fees for visit: How much? $0-150
Yes, other (specify:
)
13. PRESENCE OF SYSTEM TO PROVIDE FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO
CANNOT PAY REQUIRED FEE
0
(0%)
2
(67%)
1
(33%)
No
Yes (specify:
)
Not sure
- 95 -
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
REFERRALS AND LINKAGES
14.
MATERIALS AND STRATEGIES USED TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF HEALTH CENTER SERVICES
Type of Material/Strategy
Referral Guide
Website
Hotline or Informational Call Center
Health Center Brochure
Flyer
Community Outreach/Education
Social Media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, etc.)
Referral network for services not offered by
health center
Other (specify:
)
Available
Yes
No
2
(33%)
6
(100%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
5
(83%)
3
(50%)
5
(83%)
3
(75%)
4
(67%)
0
(0%)
4
(67%)
3
(50%)
5
(83%)
1
(17%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
1
(25%)
Tailored Specifically for
Adolescents
Yes
No
1
(17%)
3
(50%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
1
(20%)
0
(0%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
5
(83%)
3
(50%)
5
(100%)
5
(83%)
5
(100%)
4
(80%)
5
(100%)
4
(67%)
4
(100%)
15. HEALTH CENTER'S REFERRAL SERVICES FOR ADOLESCENTS
Does the health center…
Refer adolescent clients out for reproductive health services?
Yes
No
4
(67%)
2
(33%)
1
(17%)
5
(83%)
Refer adolescent clients out for contraception?
15A. PLACES ADOLESCENT CLIENTS REFERRED TO FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES OR
CONTRACEPTION
 Dr. Martin sees patients in our clinic on Thurs. which helps to eliminate referring any patient out for
reproductive health services or contraception. However, every once and again there may be a special
medical issue that we need to refer out for ex: 1. Heart-related issues that may impact effective
contraception are referred out to a Cardiologist. 2. Urethral that we may refer out to a Urologist.
 Private physicians of choice or CHC
 Public Health Department for prenatal care. Also private physicians for services beyond out scope.
 If pediatric request for insertable contraceptives, patient is sent to Women's Health Services
 Refer patients to various locations depending on needs. If special needs we may refer them to a specialist,
if not will refer to ob/gyns that they have informal agreements with that will see patients at no or little charge
- 96 -
16. PROVIDER/ORGANIZATION PARTNERSHIPS THAT ENHANCE ADOLESCENTS’ ACCESS TO
SERVICES
Provider/Organization Type
Community based organization (specify:
)
Evidence-based / Evidence-informed Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Program
High School
Middle School
Community college
Four-year college
After School Program
Foster Care Program
GED Program
Juvenile Detention
Family practice
Pediatric practice
Community health center
Mental health/Counseling Agency
Other (specify:
Cherry Tree & Jennings housing projects)
- 97 -
Formal
Linkages
Informal
Linkages
2
(33%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
1
(17%)
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
0
(0%)
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
ADOLESCENTS PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS
17. HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR ADOLESCENTS BY GENDER
Does the health center…
Provide health care services to adolescent females?
Provide health care services to adolescent males?
Yes
No
6
(100%)
5
(83%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
18. (TABLE 1) FEMALE ADOLESCENT CLIENTS (UNDUPLICATED) AND VISITS BY RACE/ETHNICITY,
AGE GROUP, AND YEAR
FEMALES
Race/Ethnicity and Age Group (Years)
Hispanic/Latino(a) – All Races*
15-17
18-19
Total
Black or African American (Non-Hispanic)
15-17
18-19
Total
White (Non-Hispanic)
15-17
18-19
Total
Other (Non-Hispanic)
15-17
18-19
Total
# Adolescent Clients
(Unduplicated)
# Adolescent Visits
CY2009
CY2010
CY2009
CY2010
0 – 32
(avg: 9)
1–9
(avg: 5)
1 – 37
(avg: 14)
0 – 36
(avg: 10)
1 – 52
(avg: 14)
4 – 41
(avg: 17)
3 – 90
(avg: 35)
11 – 22
(avg: 16)
14 – 106
(avg: 52)
0 – 106
(avg: 41)
9 – 13
(avg: 11)
9 – 118
(avg: 53)
69 – 682
(avg: 230)
135 – 300
(avg: 189)
204 – 823
(avg: 419)
54 – 619
(avg: 240)
108 – 488
(avg: 240)
162 – 808
(avg: 479)
145 – 1849
(avg: 821)
232 – 773
(avg: 490)
377 – 2315
(avg: 1311)
93 – 1605
(avg: 686)
142 – 819
(avg: 504)
235 – 2156
(avg: 1190)
21 – 650
(avg: 170)
62 – 137
(avg: 88)
87 – 787
(avg: 258)
27 – 690
(avg: 180)
67 – 151
(avg: 100)
99 – 841
(avg: 280)
87 – 1828
(avg: 692)
129 – 414
(avg: 296)
216 – 2242
(avg: 988)
77 – 1863
(avg: 682)
99 – 435
(avg: 317)
176 – 2298
(avg: 998)
2 – 34
(avg: 12)
1 – 13
(avg: 9)
3 – 41
(avg: 21)
1 – 33
(avg: 10)
1 – 19
(avg: 8)
2 – 38
(avg: 18)
10 – 114
(avg: 48)
15 – 34
(avg: 21)
25 – 129
(avg: 69)
3 – 76
(avg: 28)
8 – 20
(avg: 14)
16 – 54
(avg: 32)
Unknown Race and Ethnicity
- 98 -
18. (TABLE 1) FEMALE ADOLESCENT CLIENTS (UNDUPLICATED) AND VISITS BY RACE/ETHNICITY,
AGE GROUP, AND YEAR
FEMALES
Race/Ethnicity and Age Group (Years)
15-17
18-19
Total
All Races and Ethnicities
15-17
18-19
# Adolescent Clients
(Unduplicated)
# Adolescent Visits
CY2009
CY2010
CY2009
CY2010
0 – 23
(avg: 5)
0–2
(avg: 1)
0 – 25
(avg: 6)
0 – 22
(avg: 7)
0–5
(avg: 2)
0 – 27
(avg. 9)
0 – 50
(avg. 17)
0–2
(avg: 1)
0 – 52
(avg: 18)
0 – 32
(avg: 12)
0–7
(avg: 3)
0 – 39
(avg: 15)
92 – 1421
(avg: 426)
203 – 380
(avg: 292)
7 – 1400
(avg: 374)
52 – 621
(avg: 306)
245 – 3931
(avg. 1614)
387 – 1174
(avg: 825)
176 – 3682
(avg; 1450)
270 – 1262
(avg: 848)
18. (TABLE 2)MALE ADOLESCENT CLIENTS (UNDUPLICATED) AND VISITS BY RACE/ETHNICITY,
AGE GROUP, AND YEAR
MALES
Race/Ethnicity and Age Group (Years)
Hispanic/Latino(a) – All Races*
15-17
18-19
Total
Black or African American (Non-Hispanic)
15-17
18-19
Total
White (Non-Hispanic)
15-17
18-19
Total
Other (Non-Hispanic)
15-17
18-19
# Adolescent Clients
(Unduplicated)
CY2009
CY2010
# Adolescent Visits
CY2009
CY2010
0 - 23
(avg: 9)
0–2
(avg: 1)
0 – 25
(avg: 10)
0 – 29
(avg: 15)
0 – 13
(avg: 4)
0 – 32
(avg: 19)
0 – 43
(avg: 22)
0–8
(avg: 4)
0 – 51
(avg: 26)
0 – 66
(avg: 33)
0–7
(avg: 4)
0 – 73
(avg: 37)
0 – 581
(avg: 193)
1 – 134
(avg. 62)
1 – 715
(avg: 255)
0 – 580
(avg: 198)
0 – 153
(avg: 83)
0 – 732
(avg: 281)
0 – 1508
(avg: 754)
1 – 434
(avg: 218)
1 – 1942
(avg: 972)
0 – 1349
(avg; 675)
0 – 363
(avg. 182)
0 – 1712
(avg: 856)
0 - 634
(avg: 175)
1 – 148
(avg: 46)
1 – 782
(avg:220)
1 – 658
(avg: 190)
1 – 124
(avg: 43)
2 – 782
(avg: 233)
0 – 1675
(avg. 838)
1 – 439
(avg: 220)
1 – 2114
(avg. 1058)
1 – 1679
(avg: 840)
1 – 332
(avg: 167)
2 – 2011
(avg: 1007)
0 – 31
(avg: 9)
0–6
(avg: 2)
0 – 33
(avg: 9)
0 – 11
(avg: 4)
0 – 85
(avg: 43)
0 – 12
(avg: 6)
0 – 90
(avg: 45)
0 – 28
(avg: 14)
- 99 -
18. (TABLE 2)MALE ADOLESCENT CLIENTS (UNDUPLICATED) AND VISITS BY RACE/ETHNICITY,
AGE GROUP, AND YEAR
MALES
Total
Unknown Race and Ethnicity
15-17
18-19
Total
All Races and Ethnicities
15-17
18-19
Total
# Adolescent Clients
(Unduplicated)
# Adolescent Visits
0 – 37
(avg: 10)
0 – 41
(avg: 12)
0 – 107
(avg: 54)
0 – 118
(avg: 59)
0 – 26
(avg: 8)
0–6
(avg: 2)
0 – 32
(avg: 11)
0 – 24
(avg: 6)
0–5
(avg: 2)
0 – 25
(avg: 8)
0 – 36
(avg: 18)
0–9
(avg: 5)
0 – 45
(avg: 23)
0 – 44
(avg: 22)
0–1
(avg: 1)
0 – 45
(avg: 23)
0 – 1295
(avg: 393)
2 – 296
(avg: 113)
2 – 1591
(avg: 505)
1 – 1324
(avg: 418)
1 – 291
(avg: 133)
2 – 16115
(avg: 4176)
0 – 3357
(avg: 1125)
2 – 902
(avg: 306)
2 – 4259
(avg: 1431)
1 – 3228
(avg: 1615)
1 – 731
(avg: 366)
2 – 3959
(avg: 1981)
18A. DATA SOURCES USED TO COMPLETE TABLES 1 AND 2 ABOVE.
Allscripts Decision Support System
EMEDSYS clinic data system
M&M
19. CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING FOR ADOLESCENT FEMALES
Does the health center…
Follow current cervical cancer screening (Pap Smear) guidelines for adolescent
females (initiate pap screening at age 21)?
- 100 -
Yes
No
5
(100%)
0
(0%)
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
USE OF HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION AND IUD
BY ADOLESCENTS
20. FEMALE ADOLESCENT CLIENTS (UNDUPLICATED) AND NUMBER PROVIDED HORMONAL
CONTRACEPTION OR IUD, BY AGE GROUP, AND CALENDAR YEAR
FEMALES
# Adolescent Clients
(Unduplicated)
CY2009
CY2010
Overall
All Unduplicated Clients (Total)
15-17
18-19
Total
Provided Hormonal Contraception or IUD
15-17
18-19
Total
% Contraceptive Coverage*
15-17
18-19
Total
20A.




DATA SOURCES USED TO COMPLETE TABLE 3
Allscripts Decision Support System
EMEDSYS patient database
Women's Health Service Report
Women's Services Unit Service Report 01-01-2009 thru 12-31-2010
- 101 -
62 – 1421
(avg: 387)
67 – 319
(avg: 207)
129- 1731
(avg: 600)
30 – 1400
(avg; 368)
66 – 355
(avg: 223)
96 – 1755
(avg: 596)
26 – 87
(avg: 57)
28 – 192
(avg: 73)
55 – 279
(avg: 132)
23- 107
(avg: 54)
28 – 139
(avg: 79)
70- 268
(avg: 138)
4% - 82%
(avg: 48%)
9% - 82%
(avg: 44%)
5% - 80%
(avg: 47%)
4% - 93%
(avg: 53%)
8% - 89%
(avg: 53%)
4% - 90%
(avg: 52%)
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
STAFF TRAINING
21. TRAINING IN VARIOUS AREAS RECEIVED BY CLINICAL STAFF IN THE PAST TWO YEARS
In the past two years, staff received training on…
Stages of Adolescent Development
State-specific Minors' Rights to Consent and Confidentiality laws or provisions
Sexual abuse and reporting laws (state-specific)
Cultural Competency
Continuous Quality Improvement
Options Counseling
Youth-Friendly Services
Addressing the needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning
(LGBTQ) Youth
All
Some
None
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4
(67%)
3
(50%)
2
(33%)
5
(83%)
4
(67%)
3
(50%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
4
(67%)
3
(50%)
22. ADDITIONAL TRAINING IN VARIOUS AREAS RECEIVED BY CLINICAL STAFF IN THE PAST TWO YEARS
In the past two years, clinical staff received training on…
Contraceptive Services for Adolescents
Use of the Quick Start method for initiation of hormonal contraception
IUDs for Adolescents
Hormonal Implants
Emergency Contraception
Pap Smear Guidelines
Breast Exam Guidelines
Conducting a sexual health assessment/history for an adolescent
STI testing for adolescents
HIV testing for adolescents
Male sexual and reproductive health services
- 102 -
All
Some
None
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
3
(50%)
1
(20%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
4
(67%)
3
(50%)
4
(67%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
3
(60%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(20%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
22. ADDITIONAL TRAINING IN VARIOUS AREAS RECEIVED BY CLINICAL STAFF IN THE PAST TWO YEARS
In the past two years, clinical staff received training on…
Continuous Quality Improvement
Pregnancy Options Counseling
Youth-Friendly Services
Addressing the needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning
(LGBTQ) Youth
All
Some
None
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4
(68%)
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
IMPLEMENTATION OF EVIDENCE-BASED
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PRACTICES
23. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED ON-SITE
Does the health center provide the following services on-site?
Pregnancy testing
Standard HIV testing
Rapid HIV testing
Chlamydia and Gonorrhea (CT/GC) testing using gram stain
CT/GC testing using urine specimens
CT/GC testing using urethral or vaginal swab specimens
Yes
No
6
(100%)
5
(83%)
4
(67%)
2
(33%)
5
(83%)
5
(83%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
24. VARIOUS FORMS OF CONTRACEPTION PRESCRIBED OR PROVIDED ON-SITE
Does the health center provide the following forms of
contraception (via prescriptions and/or dispense onsite)?
Emergency contraception to females
Emergency contraception to males
IUDs
- 103 -
Prescriptions
Yes
No
2
(40%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(60%)
6
(100%)
5
(100%)
Dispense Onsite
Yes
No
3
(60%)
1
(20%)
4
(80%)
2
(40%)
4
(80%)
1
(20%)
0
(0%)
5
(100%)
2
(40%)
4
(80%)
3
(60%)
Hormonal Implants (Implanon)
Hormonal Contraceptive Pills
Hormonal Injection (Depo-Provera)
Patch
Ring
5
(100%)
0
(0%)
3
(60%)
1
(20%)
2
(40%)
2
(40%)
3
(50%)
5
(100%)
1
(17%)
4
(67%)
3
(60%)
3
(50%)
0
(0%)
5
(83%)
2
(33%)
25. PREVALENCE OF VARIOUS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO ADOLESCENT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
How often does your health center…
Offer adolescents the option of initiating hormonal
contraception using the Quick Start method (starting birth
control the day of the visit)?
Offer Quick Start initiation of hormonal contraception after an
adolescent client has a negative pregnancy test?
Offer Quick Start initiation of hormonal contraception when
an adolescent client is provided with Emergency
Contraception where the pregnancy test is negative?
Offer adolescents the option of having and IUD inserted
using the Quick Start method?
Provide Emergency Contraception (EC) to female
adolescents for future use (advance provision)?
Provide Emergency Contraception to male adolescents?
Provide adolescents with time alone with a health care
provider at every visit?
Take or update a reproductive/sexual health history or
assessment at every visit?
Follow current guidelines for Pap screening (routine Pap
screening begins at age 21 or 3 years after initiation of sexual
intercourse)?
Offer “fast track” or streamlined visits with limited waiting time
that includes access to hormonal contraception for
adolescents?
Always
Sometimes
Never
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
5
(83%)
2
(33%)
5
(83%)
1
(17%)
3
(50%)
2
(33%)
1
(17%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
5
(83%)
3
(50%)
4
(67%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
26. SERVICES ADOLESCENT PATIENTS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE IN ORDER TO GET CONTRACEPTION
Service is required prior to dispensing
hormonal contraception
Pap Smear
Pelvic Exam
Breast Exam
STD Testing
- 104 -
Yes
No
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
2
(33%)
6
(100%)
5
(83%)
6
(100%)
4
(67%)
0
(0%)
5
(83%)
5
(83%)
3
(50%)
5
(83%)
HIV Testing
Blood Pressure
Weight
Pregnancy Test
Patient & Family History
5
(100%)
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
3
(50%)
1
(17%)
27. REGULAR PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR MONITORING IN CLINIC
Does the health center…
Yes
No
6
(100%)
0
Have a set of performance measures that are collected on a regular basis (e.g.,
(0%)
quarterly, monthly) for monitoring the utilization of health care services?
MEASURES USED:
Customer Service Satisfaction Survey/Cards
No show, room turnover, days for 1st & 3rd available appt., hand washing, cleaning of stethoscope between
patient care (x2)
Quarterly and Descriptive Reports
Quarterly Metrics
Revenue, Expenses, Visits, surgeries, Distribution of contraceptive methods.
Does the health center…
Yes
No
3
3
Have a set of performance measures that are collected on a regular basis (e.g.,
(50%)
(50%)
quarterly, monthly) for monitoring the delivery of contraceptive and reproductive
health services?
MEASURES USED:
Quarterly and Descriptive Reports
Quarterly=for reproductive health services and contraceptives (Women's Services Unit Services Report)
Revenue, Expenses, Visits, surgeries, Distributions of contraceptive methods. All our services are reproductive
services.
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
ACCESSIBILITY OF SERVICES FOR ADOLESCENTS
28. WALK-INS AND APPOINTMENTS FOR ADOLESCENT SERVICES
Does the health center…
Require adolescent clients to make an appointment to access care?
Offer same day appointments for adolescent clients?
- 105 -
Yes
No
3
(50%)
4
(80%)
3
(50%)
1
(20%)
4
(80%)
Accept adolescent clients who walk-in for service?
1
(20%)
29. PROCEDURES FOR MAKING APPOINTMENTS BY PHONE
1
(17%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
Call for an appointment which is answered by a
health center staff person
Call for an appointment which is answered by a
centrally located call center
On-line appointment scheduling
Other (specify: Option 1,2, & 3
)
No appointments made / Health Center accepts
walk-ins only
30.
CURRENT WAITING PERIOD BEFORE BEING SEEN
0 – 14
(avg: 8)
0 - 14
(avg: 7)
0 - 14
(avg: 7)
0 – 14
(avg: 7)
0 – 14
(avg: 5)
Left blank
2
(33%)
Days wait for an initial exam
Days wait for an STI screening
Days wait for a pregnancy test
Days wait for a prescription refill / contraceptive
supplies
Days wait for educational materials
Days wait for other (specify:
)
No appointments made / Health Center accepts
walk-ins only
31. HOURS OF OPERATION AND PROVISION OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
Mon
Hours of
operation
Hours of RHS
provided
Start
8:00am
End
4:30pm5:00pm
8:00am12:30pm
4:30pm5:00pm
8:00am
Start
End
Hours of
adolescent RHS
provided
Start
End
4:30pm5:00pm
Tues
Weds
Thurs
Fri
8:00am9:00am
4:30pm5:00pm
8:00am12:30pm
4:30pm5:00pm
8:00am10:00am
4:00pm5:00pm
8:00am9:00am
4:30pm5:00pm
8:00am12:30pm
4:00pm5:00pm
8:00am9:00am
4:00pm5:00pm
7:00am8:00am
4:30pm5:00pm
7:00am8:00am
4:00pm5:00pm
7:00am8:00am
4:00pm7:30pm
7:30am8:00am
12:30pm5:00pm
8:00am12:30pm
4:00pm5:00pm
7:30am8:00am
12:30pm5:00pm
- 106 -
Sat
Sun
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
closed
32. NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS AVAILABLE DAILY FOR ADOLESCENTS
Number of available
appointments for
adolescents
Mon
Tues
Weds
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
0 – 30
(avg:
20)
0 – 30
(avg:
22)
0 – 30
(avg:
18)
0 – 48
(avg:
26)
0 – 30
(avg:
19)
N/A
N/A
33. INFORMATION GIVEN TO ADOLESCENTS DURING FIRST CALL
Do you tell adolescents whether or not there is a fee
for services or whether services are free?
Do you ask adolescents for parental consent?
If adolescents do not ask, do you tell them that family
planning services are confidential?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Always
1
(17%)
4
(67%)
0
(0%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
34. FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES FOR ADOLESCENT NO-SHOWS
Percentage of adolescent no-shows per month – Range: 22-30% (avg. 26%)
No
3
(50%)
Yes
3
(50%)
Not sure
0
(0%)
If yes, what is the procedure:
Send letter
0
(0%)
Call
2
(67%)
Case worker / Outreach worker makes visit to adolescent
0
(0%)
Other (specify:
1
(33%)
both 1 & 2)
35. ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES TO REMIND ADOLESCENTS ABOUT RETURN APPOINTMENTS AFTER
NO-SHOWS
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
No
Yes
- 107 -
0
(0%)
Not sure
If yes, what is the procedure:
Send letter
0
(0%)
3
(75%)
1
(25%)
Call
Other (specify:
return appointment given at visit )
36. PERCENTAGE OF ADOLESCENT PATIENTS WHO RETURN FOR A SECOND VISIT:
ONE RESPONSE – 80%
37. PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO REMIND ADOLESCENTS ABOUT RETURN APPOINTMENT
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
No
Yes
38. PROCEDURES FOR ADOLESCENTS WHO RETURN FOR FOLLOW-UP APPOINTMENTS
It’s by
chance
Sometimes
Usually /
Always
How often are they scheduled to see the same counselor or
educator they saw before?
4
(67%)
1
(7%)
1
(17%)
How often are they scheduled to see the same medical
practitioner they saw before?
Are you able to let adolescent girls see a female medical
practitioner if they ask for one?
3
(50%)
0
(0%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
39. PROCEDURES FOR INITIAL
AND FOLLOW-UP VISITS
Minutes
When an adolescent comes for a scheduled appointment, how many minutes (on average) do
they wait to be seen?
During their initial visit, from check-in to discharge, how many minutes (on average) is the
adolescent in your clinic or site?
During their follow-up visit, from check-in to discharge, how many minutes (on average) is the
adolescent in your clinic or site?
<15 - 30
(avg: 19)
45 – 120
(avg: 73)
10 – 60
(avg: 39)
40. ACCESSIBILITY OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES OFFERED
Are contraceptive and reproductive health services…
Easily accessible by public transportation (within 1 mile of a bus stop,
subway stop, etc.)?
- 108 -
Yes
No
5
(83%)
1
(17%)
Within close proximity (within 1-2 miles) of places where adolescents spend
their free time?
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
Less than 10 miles from area schools?
6
(100%)
0
(0%)
41. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION USED BY ADOLESCENTS
4
(67%)
1
(17%)
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
6
(100%)
Bus
Taxi / Cab ride
Agency van pick-up
Walk
Other (specify: family member or friend )
42.
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY CLINIC
4
(67%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
1
(50%)
0
(0%)
0
(0.0%)
1
(50%)
No
Yes
Not sure
Bus passes
Taxi / Cab rides
Agency van pick-up
Other (specify:
income-based )
Travel grant for surgery services;
43. ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING ADOLESCENTS
Does the health center…
Involve youth in designing services to provide reproductive health care to
adolescents?
Involve youth in evaluating services to provide reproductive health care to
adolescents?
Clearly display its hours and services?
Produce flyers or pamphlets that advertise its services for adolescents?
- 109 -
Yes
No
0
(0%)
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
1
(20%)
6
(100%)
4
(67%)
2
(33%)
4
(80%)
Advertise its services within the target community (e.g., through radio,
local print media, etc.)?
1
(17%)
5
(83%)
Use the Internet (including social media) for education, appointment
reminders, and/or communication with clients?
4
(67%)
2
(33%)
Offer discounted services or financing for adolescents?
3
(60%)
2
(40%)
See adolescents for confidential reproductive health services without
parental/caregiver consent?
6
(100%)
0
(0%)
Use materials that address the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) youth?
1
(17%)
5
(83%)
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
CLINICAL PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT
This section collects information that describes the physical health center environment along with the
use and application of clinic-based evidence-based interventions.
44. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLINIC’S
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Does the health center…
Have a separate space/area to provide services for adolescent clients?
Have a separate waiting room for adolescent clients?
Have a counseling area that provides both visual and auditory privacy?
Have an examination room that provides visual and auditory privacy?
Have teen focused magazines or posters on the walls?
Display information (pamphlets, posters, flyers, fact sheets) about an adolescent’s
ability to access confidential contraceptive and reproductive health care without
parental or caregiver consent.
Videos or TV programs showing health related information?
(Please specify: surgery
)
Brief evidence-based or evidence-informed video Interventions designed for
adolescents (e.g. “What Would You Do?”)?
(Please specify:
)
- 110 -
Yes
No
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
4
(67%)
4
(67%)
5
(8%)
0
(0%)
5
(83%)
6
(100%)
2
(33%)
2
(33%)
1
(17%)
6
(100%)
1
(17%)
5
(83%)
0
(0%)
6
(100%)
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CQI)
45. GOALS RELATED TO REDUCING TEEN PREGNANCY IN THE COMMUNITY
Does the health center…
Have specific goals related to reducing teen pregnancy in the community?
Yes
No
2
(33%)
4
(67%)
45A. GOALS DESCRIBED:




Has expanded its services recently to include services tailored to pregnant Hispanic women many of
whom are adolescents in hopes of increasing awareness in pregnancy prevention and family planning.
1.Increased access to health care and reproductive services among youth ages 15-19 in Richmond
County. 2. Reduce Teen Pregnancies by 10% among youth ages 15-19 in Richmond County by 2015. .
to further increase access to contraceptive and reproductive health services for adolescents
Under development
46. CLINIC’S EXPERIENCE USING VARIOUS PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OR CONTINUOUS
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT METHODOLOGIES
5
(83%)
2
(33%)
0
(0%)
4
(67%)
3
(50%)
5
(83%)
1
(17%)
0
(0%)
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)
IHI Model for Improvement including Plan Do Study Act (PDSA)
Run Collaboratives
Clinical Quality Improvement Initiatives
Performance Measures
Using Data for Program Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (Data Dashboard)
Other (specify: Client Survey
)
None that I am aware of
47. PRESENCE OF TRAINED QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STAFF
Does the health center…
Have staff especially trained and dedicated to identifying and leading quality
improvement initiatives?
- 111 -
Yes
No
3
(50%)
3
(50%)
48. CLINIC’S SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO IMPROVE SERVICES OFFERED IN THE PAST 2 YEARS.
Target Population
Goal of Improvement
What was Done to Reach Goal
How was Success Measured
Outcomes
All Family Planning Patients
One component of our on-going Quality Management program is to
periodically audit patient records to measure compliance with our medical
standards and protocols. Audits are performed quarterly, typically on
services that are high-volume, high-risk, or highly correlated to patient
satisfaction. Examples of audit topics are notification and treatment of
STIs (sexually transmitted infections), referral for treatment of abnormal
pap smears, and time spent in clinic. The target pop. is generally the
group of recipients of a particular service rather than a certain
demographic group such as adolescents.
Pediatrics and some Adolescents
Pregnant females
Pregnant Hispanic women
Reproductive health service's clients
Decrease waiting time for appointments (average wait time Oct 2010 was
8-12 weeks.) Per Women’s Health Quarterly Report. Decrease open
room times due to no shows of 51.5% (Per M&M)
Provide family planning and prenatal care to cover this underserved
population
The goal of the audits is to determine our degree of compliance, identify
need for improvement, and improve wherever necessary. The goal is
always 100%, and the minimum acceptable standard is usually 90% but
sometimes higher. If shortcomings in performance are noted corrective
plans are designed and implemented, followed by repeat audits.
To provide continuity of care between in-patient and out-patient setting,
fewer tests done at delivery, Strive for 5
to reduce appointment wait time
additional clinic day was added
Audits are performed, improvement plans executed, and audits repeated
until satisfactory results are obtained.
Changed to walk in appointments only. Some appointments were still
made for follow-ups and Colposcopy on an as needed basis (very few)
Consolidated the pre-natal education curriculum and trained all staff for
content responsibility, pre-natal testing and OB card kept up-to-date;
trimester appropriate labs ordered, printed out info for patients
opened extra day each month to perform sonograms at which time a
referral is made to receive continued prenatal care at low or no cost to the
patient with local OBGYN
Compared numbers of patients actually seen when making appointments
and number of patients seen as walk ins. Women’s services unit services
report
comparing previous appt wait time with current appt wait time
number of women at clinic
Patient satisfaction is being measured by Avatar, Press-Ganey
Scoring 90% or greater on audits.
Actual patients seen increased. Staffing turn-over & daily staffing
numbers fluctuated substantially from day to day at this time. On average
before Oct 2010 Family planning was seeing 7 patients daily. As soon as
the doors were open & word got out about walk ins this increased to an
average of 15 patients
decreased wait time for appt
on average we see 15 new women each month
On-going assessment of compliance with medical standards and
- 112 -
protocols helps ensure a high standard of patient care.
Utilizing best practices more effectively, increased awareness of diseases
Why was it Successful?
Because it is done systematically.
Staff and patients and Patient/Family Centered Care Council worked
together to make the birth experience a positive journey from out-patient
clinic thru delivery. effort was successful
the clinic has been successful because of the need for it in the
community, these women in the past have gone without prenatal care for
the length of their pregnancy. this clinic is providing a much needed link
between many young, Hispanic women and the healthcare they need
during their pregnancy.
we was able to accommodate additional client appt request
Yes! We were able to see more patients and to see them quicker.
CLINICAL PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
SUCCESS/CHALLENGES IN CONTRACEPTION AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES FOR
ADOLESCENTS
49. BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF CONTRACEPTIVE AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE TO ADOLESCENTS





Cost of services to patient; lack of specific adolescent training (ex. adolescent physical and psych-social
development, adolescent sexual history taking, adolescent in the law, contraceptive methods for
adolescents); most adolescents have Peach Care, but many providers do not want to provide care
without parental consent; many providers believe that providing contraception without parental
involvement is not effective, teens not as free to speak openly with parents present, hours of operation
Hours of operation (limited after school hours); Security in PM for later hours of operation; Confidentiality
(mostly at front check-in area); Continuity of care (patient bouncing from person to person) for ex: 1.
Check in clerk 2. register clerk 3. someone escorting them to FP waiting area 4. Student for VS 5. LPN
or RN for interviewing in exam room 6. laboratory tech 7. Nurse or student escorting to exam room 8.
RN or NP actual exam 9. check out clerk ( WOW ) That’s a lot of people and stops. Especially for a
teen. at this time for patients to request certain caregivers. High Turnover rate for staffing making it
difficult for the adolescent to form a bond.
lack of staffing to include both clinical and educators. lack of space to have separate adolescent services
to include video and audio.
Limited clinician and staff hours. Cost of underwriting services for adolescents (or anyone else).
unique population served that faces different challenges than most. within the Hispanic community that
we serve cultural, economical, educational as well as language barriers arise. they strive to maintain a
multi-cultural clinic where patients can feel that they are treated with respect and also understanding
regarding their own beliefs while utilizing a biomedical culture to serve them. in the past language
barriers were more common but recently many bilingual individuals (providers and non-providers) have
- 113 -
become interested in volunteering and this is not generally a barrier for us within our clinic but remains a
challenge when patients are referred out. economically many people everywhere
50. SUCCESSES, BEST PRACTICES AND/OR SPECIAL PROJECTS RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF
CONTRACEPTIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE TO ADOLESCENTS
For more than ten years we have dispensed hormonal contraceptives without
requiring a pelvic exam, which had previously been a barrier to use of prescription
methods for some adolescents. While appointments are available, we also provide
services on a walk-in basis to reduce barriers to service. We promote Emergency
Contraception, especially to those not using alternative methods consistently or
reliably. We have found that when funding has been available for community
outreach, utilization of services by adolescents has been greatest. In the absence of
outreach activities utilization declines markedly.
Successes=change to walk ins only; Best practices= quick starts; special projects=
Community outreach to Cherry Tree and Jennings Housing projects for Quick starts.
Target our postpartum to get contraceptive within 6 weeks of delivery, provide
various types of contraceptives: Rx for oral, onsite IUD and Implanon; have
dedicated adolescent clinic M-F from 12:30pm - 4pm
they have established sonogram clinic this year and are very excited to be providing
the service where there were none before. additionally they have worked together
with St. Teresa's of Avila to provide supplies in the form of baskets for new mothers.
this has helped to provide them with some essentials they couldn't afford.
when funding was available in the past we provided a Saturday clinic for our
adolescents to decrease school attendance disruption.
- 114 -
PHARMACY SURVEY
Results
- 115 -
PHARMACY SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
PHARMACY SURVEY DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
PURPOSE/GOALS
This purpose of this survey was to collect data from pharmacists about the availability and provision
of emergency contraception in the Richmond County community.
Specifically, the survey asked
about rules surrounding dispensation of prescription and over-the-counter contraceptives,
mechanisms of action and side effects of certain drugs, and reasons why a pharmacy may or may not
provide contraceptives to youth.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The pharmacy survey was adapted from a Philliber Research Associates survey tool. There was no
accessible electronic version of the tool, so an electronic version was created and revised according
to suggestions by the G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and through
review of the tool for errors noted by research team members. The evaluation team also consulted
two pharmacists within CDC’s Division of Adolescent Health regarding the survey tool’s “readability”
to ensure that questions were phrased using language that pharmacists were accustomed to and that
no questions were misleading or inaccurately represented emergency contraceptives currently on the
market. Revisions were complete by April 1, 2011.
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT
Two primary strategies were used to recruit pharmacies. First, the core partners for the Richmond
County Partnership identified pharmacies within the community. In addition, the evaluation team
identified 20 pharmacists in Richmond county catchment areas with high and low teen pregnancy
rates. Once a sampling frame was established, a member of the evaluation team served as the lead
data collector for the pharmacy survey, and administered the survey via phone over a two week
period.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
A demographic profile sheet was developed to complement the survey. The purpose of this sheet was
to provide general information about the survey respondent (e.g., their age, sex, racial/ethnic
affiliation, marital status, educational attainment, etc.). The demographic profile sheet was completed
by the assessment team researcher prior to beginning the survey.
- 116 -
RESEARCHER RECRUITMENT:
No community or professional researchers were trained to administer this survey tool. Pharmacist
surveys were conducted by the needs assessment team. All surveys were conducted over the phone
and no consent forms were necessary.
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection began on August 22, 2011 and concluded on October 14, 2011.
COMPENSATION FOR RESEARCHERS
Because the needs assessment team collected these data, no compensation beyond salary was
provided.
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT
Pharmacists were not compensated for participating in the survey.
- 117 -
PHARMACY PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
The twenty respondents who participated in the pharmacy survey were either pharmacy managers or
staff pharmacists. The average length of time that respondents had worked as pharmacists was nine
years. Pharmacists ranged from 25 to 65 years old, and the majority of them were between 25 and 44
years old. Thirteen of the nineteen respondents were female and seven were male.
PHARMACY PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
GENERAL CONTRACEPTION
5. TYPES OF BIRTH CONTROL OR CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS PHARMACY PROVIDES
(Pharmacists checked all that applied)
19
(95%)
20
(100%)
17
(85%)
16
(80%)
10
(50%)
18
(90%)
9
(45%)
17
(85%)
Condoms
Birth Control pills
Birth Control Patch
Spermicide
Diaphragm
Vaginal Ring
Female Condoms
Emergency Contraceptives
6. PHARMACIES’ REPORTING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN AGE LIMIT TO OBTAIN CERTAIN
CONTRACEPTIVES
2
(11%)
1
(6%)
15
(83%)
No
Yes, for prescription contraceptives
Yes, for over-the-counter contraceptives
- 118 -
6A. TYPES OF CONTRACEPTIVES FOR WHICH PHARMACIES REPORT THERE IS AN AGE LIMIT OF 18
YEARS OR OLDER
18
(5%)
18
(5%)
Condoms
Birth Control pills
6B. REQUIRED AGE RANGE TO OBTAIN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AS REPORTED BY
PHARMACISTS
16-18
(mode : 18)
Emergency Contraceptives
6C.REASONS PHARMACISTS IMPOSE AGE LIMIT FOR CONTRACEPTION PURCHASES
The law imposes age limits.
Company policy does not allow the sale of these
contraceptives to people under this age limit.
It is against personal beliefs of pharmacist.
Other (specify contraceptive to which you are referring):
Because it's a minor, situation of abuse; Just to make sure
they are using it responsibly. Statuary Rape. Emergency
Contraceptives; They came up with this age as legal age; To
prevent recurring use of the EC. It is not healthy.
11
(65%)
1
(6%)
0
(0%)
5
(29%)
7. PLACEMENT OF OVER-THE-COUNTER CONTRACEPTIVES (INCLUDING CONDOMS AND SPERMICIDE)
IN PHARMACIES SURVEYED
On aisles near the pharmacy – in a locked cabinet
4
(25%)
1
(5%)
6
(30%)
8
(40%)
6
(30%)
On aisles near the pharmacy – in an unlocked
cabinet
Behind the pharmacy counter
Both on aisles near the pharmacy and behind the
pharmacy counter
Somewhere else (please specify):
- 119 -
8. ESTIMATED TIMES WHEN WOMEN
AND TEENAGE GIRLS ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH
(topics related to pregnancy tests, pregnancy prevention, contraceptive use and safety, and menstrual cycles, such as
spotting, breakthrough bleeding)
Women in general
Teenagers (ages 15–19)
5
(25%)
3
(15%)
9
(45%)
2
(10%)
1
(5%)
6
(32%)
6
(32%)
1
(5%)
2
(11%)
4
(21%)
More than once a day
2 – 3 times per week
Less than once a week
Once a month
Never
PHARMACY PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
9.
PERCEPTIONS’ OF “WHAT EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION DOES” (CHECKED ALL THAT APPLIED)
1
(5%)
12
(60%)
15
(75%)
1
(5.0%)
Emergency birth control
Keeps a female from getting pregnant after
unprotected sex
Like a high dose of birth control
Other: Prevents egg from planting to uterine wall
10. PHARMACISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRIMARY MECHANISM OF ACTION FOR EMERGENCY
CONTRACEPTION (CHECKED ALL THAT APPLIED)
4
(20%)
4
(20%)
18
(90%)
Works to suppress ovulation
Prevent fertilization
Prevent implantation
- 120 -
11. PHARMACISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF WHETHER OR NOT
TAKING AN EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE
WILL TERMINATE A PREGNANCY IF THE A FEMALE IS ALREADY PREGNANT
No
Yes
Not sure
14
(70%)
4
(20%)
2
(10%)
12. PHARMACISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TIME IT TAKES FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE TO BE
EFFECTIVE AFTER UNPROTECTED INTERCOURSE
1
(5%)
3
(15%)
15
(75%)
0
(0%)
1
(5%)
0
(0%)
24 hours
48 hours
72 hours
120 hours
Other: The earlier the better.
Not sure
13. PHARMACISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SIDE EFFECTS COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH USING
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE
(Checked all that applied)
0
(0%)
18
(80%)
0
(0%)
8
(40%)
12
(60%)
0
(0%)
2
(10%)
Drowsiness
Nausea and vomiting
An abortion
Bleeding
Pain / cramping
Don’t know
Other: Rash; fatigue, dizziness, headaches,
menstrual change
14. PHARMACISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF WHETHER OR NOT A PRESCRIPTION IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES
3
(16%)
1
(5%)
14
(78%)
No (which one? Plan B if 18 and older)
Yes (which one? Ella)
Yes, if you are under 17 (which one? Plan B)
- 121 -
PHARMACY PROVIDER SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS
YOUR PHARMACY
15. BRANDS(S) OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE STOCKED
21
(56%)
12
(56%)
1
(5%)
1
(5%)
2
(10%)
Plan B One Step
Next Choice
Ella
Generic Brand
None
15A. ESTIMATED COST OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION TO UNINSURED PATIENTS
$40 - $53
(avg: $45.50)
$0 - $46
(avg: $36.09)
$43.99
Plan B One Step
Next Choice
Ella
$40
(5%)
Other: Generic Brand
15B. ESTIMATED COST OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION TO INSURED PATIENTS
$0 – no co-pay
(5%)
Depends on the insurance
(5%)
Next Choice
Other:
16. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE DOSES SOLD ON A WEEKLY BASIS
0 - 12
(avg: 3)
17. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT PHARMACY SELLS OVER-THE-COUNTER
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES TO MALES
No
7
(41%)
Yes
9
(53%)
- 122 -
Not sure
1
(6%)
18. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT A GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID IS NEEDED TO
PURCHASE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES
(Pharmacists checked all that applied)
2
(12%)
0
(0%)
15
(88%)
No
Yes, for prescription EC treatment
Yes, for over-the-counter EC treatment
19. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS OF WHY PHARMACY DOES NOT STOCK EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
1
(50%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(100%)
1
(100%)
Against store policy
Conflicts with pharmacist’s personal beliefs
Gave no reason / ended phone call
There is no demand for it
Other (specify: Used to have it, was abused by patients
20. AMONG THE PHARMACIES WHO DO NOT OFFER EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, THREE
PHARMACISTS REPORTED A WILLINGNESS TO REFER PATIENTS TO ANOTHER PHARMACY THAT
DOES STOCK EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES.
Yes
3
(17%)
21. AMONG THE PHARMACIES THAT DO NOT STOCK EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES, RESPONSES TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE PHARMACY PLANS TO CARRY STOCK IT IN THE FUTURE
No
1
(33%)
COMMENTS: 1 comment (33%)
If the demand is there
Yes
Not sure
0
(0%)
1
(33%)
22. PHARMACISTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON WHETHER OR NOT EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION IS SAFE FOR
TEENAGERS (AGES 15 – 19)
No
Yes
Not sure
0
(0%)
COMMENTS: 9 comments
 17-19 is fine
19
(95%)
- 123 -
1
(5%)








As long as parental consent is involved
Hesitant to give to a 13 year old.
I don't want them to purchase without parental consent
If doctor prescribes them
If it is used as intended. Should be some sort of counseling for this group
If they deserve it.
it is not good form
It should be used appropriately. May view as birth control.
23. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS OF HAVING EVER RECEIVED ANY CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT ON
TOPICS RELATED TO EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
No
10
(50%)
COMMENTS: 5 comments
 did an online article on EC
 did it online
 I have read articles on Plan B
 online course
 We have to have 30 hours every few years
Yes
Not sure
8
(40%)
2
(10%)
24. PHARMACISTS’ WILLINGNESS TO ATTEND TRAINING ON EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION THAT
OFFERS CE CREDIT
No
Yes
Not sure
0
(0%)
20
(100%)
0
(0%)
25. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE STORE POLICY ALLOWS THE DISPLAY OR
DISSEMINATION OF EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ON EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
No
Yes
7
4
(37%)
(21%)
COMMENTS: 3 comments
 I am not sure about this question. Would have to speak with clinical coordinator
 It depends on the district manager
 Up to CVS Pharmacy
- 124 -
Not sure
8
(42%)
26A. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SOMEONE IN PHARMACY SITE WHO
REFUSES TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES
(question based on the Georgia law that allows individual pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives)
No
Yes
18
(90%)
2
(10%)
26B. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS ON HOW PHARMACY MANAGES PATIENT ACCESS TO EMERGENCY
CONTRACEPTIVES WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL PHARMACISTS EXERCISES HIS/HER RIGHT TO REFUSE
DISPENSATION
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
Refer patients to another pharmacy that does
dispense emergency contraceptives.
Explain that pharmacy does not dispense EC or make
EC referrals.
Comments: They are very religious
1
Comment
27. PHARMACISTS’ REPORTS ON WHETHER OR NOT PHARMACISTS REFUSING TO DISPENSE
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EVER EXPRESS ANY “ANTI-EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION
SENTIMENTS”
No
Yes
Couldn’t tell
15
(79%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
28. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PROVIDED BY PHARMACISTS
8 comments
 As long as it is used responsibly
 As long as it was used responsibly.
 Interviewee was very rushed due to busy time of the day. There was some concern expressed about how
the data would be used and that it would not be tied to her company.
 Pharmacist did not disagree w/ EC as long as it was used appropriately
 She was very supportive of the EC as long as it used appropriately
 The pharmacist was receptive to the use of emergency contraceptive as long as it is being used
responsibly by the individual. When they offered Plan B, the individual had to be at least 18 years old to
purchase.
 The pharmacist was receptive to the use of emergency contraceptive as long as it is being used
responsibly by the individual. When they offered Plan b, the individual had to be at least 18 years old to
purchase.
- 125 -
YOUTH-SERVING
ORGANIZATION SURVEY
Results
- 126 -
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
ANALYSIS
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
COLLECTION METHODS
PURPOSE/GOALS
The purpose of the youth-serving organization survey is to collect data on organizations to identify
current strengths, as well as areas of potential growth, related to the implementation of evidencebased programs to prevent teen pregnancy. Specifically, the survey was designed to learn what GCAPP can do to help youth-serving organizations adopt or strengthen evidence-based programs.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
The survey was adapted from a Philliber Research Associates tool. There was no accessible
electronic version of the tool available, so an electronic version was created and revised according to
suggestions by the G-CAPP staff, the lead project researcher, the data manager, and through review
of the tool for errors noted by research team members. The survey was revised based on the unique
purpose and needs of this assessment, and was evaluated for “readability.”
After the survey was developed, the CDC team developed a survey tool for community agencies,
which was released on July 1, 2011. Data collection for this wave was delayed until the updated
survey tool was released and adapted for the Richmond County community needs assessment.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE SHEET
Individual data were collected from staff at youth-serving organizations to gain an understanding of
staff members’ educational backgrounds and also provided general information about the survey
respondent (e.g., their age, sex, racial/ethnic affiliation, marital status, educational attainment, etc.).
The demographic profile sheet was completed by the person completing the assessment prior to
beginning the survey.
RESEARCHER RECRUITMENT
For the purposes of this survey, data collection was conducted by the youth -serving organization
and the Messages of Empowerment assessment team. No additional researchers were hired to
survey this group.
- 127 -
The assessment team met with representatives at each youth-serving organization for two hours
to explain the needs assessment survey and to review each question within the survey
instrument. Each organization was responsible for populating the tool with their individual
organization’s data and submitting the completed survey back to the assessment team within
two weeks of the meeting. Halfway through completion (one week after the initial meeting), The
assessment team then met with each organization’s representatives for one hour to discuss
challenges experienced in completing the survey tool.
DATA COLLECTION START AND END DATE
Data collection began after each organization’s two-hour meeting. Each organization was given
two weeks to submit the survey and data collection concluded on November 9, 2011.
SURVEY PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT PLAN AND PROCESS
All eleven youth-serving organizations who serve as collaborative partners for this initiative were
asked to complete the survey. The eleven youth-serving organizations who submitted data are:

Augusta Mini Theatre, Inc.

Augusta State University Department of Nursing

Department of Juvenile Justice

East Central Health District

Jones Behavioral Health, Inc.

Kids Restart, Inc.

New Bethlehem Community Center

Planned Parenthood Southeast

Rape Crisis and Sexual Assault Services, University Health Services, Inc.

Richmond County Juvenile Court

Youth Challenge Academy
Informed consent was not necessary for this group of participants.
COMPENSATION FOR RESEARCHERS
Because the needs assessment team collected this group’s data, no compensation beyond salary
was provided.
- 128 -
COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENTS
Completion of this survey was undertaken in conjunction with youth-serving organizations’’
memoranda of understanding. Upon successful completion of the survey, each youth-serving
organization was issued a $5,000 stipend directly from G-CAPP.
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
ANALYSIS
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION
DEMOGRAPHICS
The eleven youth-serving organizations that completed this survey identified themselves as one of
the following types of organizations: School, non-clinical division of the health department, planned
parenthood affiliate, community based organizations where adolescent reproductive health is one of
many
programs,
Health
care
facility
(hospital,
clinic),
community
arts
school,
Juvenile
Program/Facilities, Juvenile Program/Facilities, Local, city government, and Rape Crisis and Sexual
Assault Services Program.
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
ANALYSIS
RESPONDENT ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION
INFORMATION
COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT
WHO PROVIDED INFORMATION FOR THIS ASSESSMENT BY POSITION TITLE?
Executive
Program
Assistant
Program Staff
Health/sexuality
Director
Director
Director
Member
educator
3
(17%)
3
(17%)
1
(5%)
1
(5%)
1
(5%)
Other
9
(50%)
OTHER POSITION TITLES:
Artistic Director/Drama Instructor, Business Manager, Family Aid, Founder, Judge, Judicial Assistant,
Program Coordinator, VP of External Affairs, and Youth Development Coordinator.
LENGTH OF TIME IN ORGANIZATION:
2-36 years
(average: 14 years)
- 129 -
WHO ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS (BY POSITION TITLE)?
Executive Director
Program Director
Program Staff
Health/Sexuality
Other
1
(9%)
Member
2
(18%)
Educator
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
5
(45%)
OTHER POSITION TITLES:
Judicial Assistant and VP of External Affairs.
LENGTH OF TIME IN ORGANIZATION:
1 month - 23 years
(avg. 9 years)
HOW ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED?
YSO staff completing survey on their own
In-person interview
Telephone interview
Both YSO staff completing and in-person interview
9
(91%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
ANALYSIS
ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
1. WHAT STATEMENT BEST DESCRIBES THE ORGANIZATION?
School
School district
Health department
Planned Parenthood affiliate
Community-Based Organization (CBO) that focuses primarily on teen
pregnancy
CBO where adolescent reproductive health is one of many programs
Faith-based organization
Health care facility (hospital, clinic)
Other (specify: Community Arts School, Community Service
Organization, Juvenile Program/Facilities, Local/city government, Rape
Crisis and Sexual Assault Services Program)
- 130 -
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
5
(46%)
2A. LENGTH OF TIME ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE
8.5-166 years
(avg. 61)
2B. HOW LONG HAS YOUR ORGANIZATION HAD A TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION (TPP)
FOCUS?
5
(46%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
3
(27%)
2
(18%)
<2 years
2-5years
6-10 years
>10 years
TPP is a new focus for us
TPP is not a focus for us
HOURLY OR SALARIED PERSONNEL IN THE ORGANIZATION
How many hourly or salaried personnel…
3. Do you have in your organization?
4. In your local organization work (or will work if this is a new focus) on
teen pregnancy prevention (TPP) programming full-time and parttime
Full-time
Part-time
1-105
(avg. 27)
0-5
(avg. 1)
0-27
(avg. 5)
0-5
(avg. 3)
5. HOW MANY VOLUNTEER OR IN-KIND INDIVIDUALS WORK (OR WILL WORK IF
THIS IS A NEW FOCUS) ON TPP PROGRAMMING?
0-2
(avg. 1)
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Does the organization…
Yes
No
Don’t know
(DK)
6. Have written job descriptions for the executive director (or
equivalent) and other staff positions?
10
(91%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
7. Have written personnel policies and procedures (e.g., a
Human Resources Manual)?
8. Have someone on the staff or board with skills to do things
like interview candidates and get their references?
11
(100%)
11
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
CURRENT BUDGET
9. WHAT IS THE CURRENT ANNUAL BUDGET OF YOUR ORGANIZATION (FOR
ALL ACTIVITIES, ADMINISTRATION, AND OVERHEAD)?
Does the organization…
10. Current budget cover all programming and administrative
costs?
- 131 -
$150,000- $6M
(avg: $1,693,423)
Yes
No
Don’t know
(DK)
8
(73%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
11A. FUNDRAISING STRATEGIES
In the last 12 months to support teen pregnancy
prevention programs, has the organization used
the…
Yes
No
N/A
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
5
(45%)
3
(27%)
5
(45%)
5
(45%)
6
(55%)
6
(55%)
6
(55%)
6
(55%)
5. Grant-writing
3
(27%)
2
(18%)
6
(55%)
6. Other: (specify: Endowments, donations)
1
(9%)
4
(36%)
6
(55%)
1. A direct mail campaign
2. Fees for services
3. Cause-related marketing which collects a portion of sales
on consumer items
4. Special events such as dinners, fund-raising events, etc.
11B. FUNDING SOURCES
OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS TO SUPPORT TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS INDICATE
THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FUNDING FOR TPP THE ORGANIZATION OBTAINED FROM THE
FOLLOWING FUNDING SOURCES
6
(55%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
3
(27%)
100% from Federal government
100% State government
Local government
Corporate donors
25% Individual/Private donors
25% United Way
50% Foundations (national, community, other)
Other sources (specify_______)
Not applicable: we have not been involved in teen pregnancy prevention in the
past 12 months.
SUCCESS IN FUNDRAISING
12. HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR ORGANIZATION’S SUCCESS IN RAISING FUNDS IN THE LAST 12
MONTHS FOR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
N/A (have not raised
funds for this purpose)
0
(0%)
4
(36%)
0
(0%)
- 132 -
0
(5%)
7
(64%)
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Does the organization…
Yes
No
Don't know
(DK)
13. Have a clearly defined mission?
11
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
14. Have a written strategic plan to guide work and
development over the next 3-5 years?
15. Have the current strategic plan that is realistic given the
current resources of the organization?
16. Have support from the board and staff?
8
(73%)
6
(75%)
8
(100%)
9
(82%)
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
1
(11%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
2
(25%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
17. Have a board of directors?
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
ANALYSIS
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
INFORMATION
18. IN WHAT SETTING DO YOU CARRY OUT (OR PLAN TO CARRY OUT IF THIS IS A NEW FOCUS) IN
YOUR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS?
4
(36%)
4
(36%)
3
(27%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
6
(55%)
4
(36%)
5
(45%)
Schools
After-school
Foster care youth program
Residential or group home
Clinical-based facility
Community Center or similar location
Faith institution
Other (specify: Detention facility and youth on
probation; female enlisted in active duty assigned
th
to the 15 Signal Brigade at Fort Gordon, GA
military, RC DFCS, Trade school/GED
centers/community college, and University
Housing)
Don't Know
0
(0%)
- 133 -
19. WHAT AGE GROUP(S) DO YOU INTEND TO REACH WITH YOUR CURRENT (OR FUTURE IF THIS
IS A NEW FOCUS) TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAMS?
0
(0%)
3
(27%)
5
(45%)
8
(72%)
10
(91%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
10 years and younger
11-12 years
13-14 years
15-17 years
18-19 years
20 years and older
Don't Know
20. DO YOU INTEND TO SELECT PROGRAMMING TO USE WITH A PARTICULAR RACIAL/ETHNIC
GROUP(S)?
3
(27%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
8
(72%)
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Asian
White
Hispanic or Latino
No, we don’t plan to use programming for a
particular racial/ethnic group(s)
TARGET CAPACITY
Approximate Number
Have not provided
teen pregnancy
prevention
900
(9%)
10
(91%)
50-450
(avg. 261)
N/A
21A. How many young people participate in your
teen pregnancy prevention programs each
year?
21B. If you do not currently offer teen pregnancy
prevention programs, but plan to in the
future, what is your best estimate of how
many young people you aim to target in the
next year?
- 134 -
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
ANALYSIS
AVAILABLE DATA AND PLANNING ACTIVITIES
22. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR THE POPULATION YOU SERVE DO YOU NOW HAVE OR
ARE SURE YOU CAN OBTAIN?
9
(81%)
8
(73%)
8
(73%)
6
(55%)
7
(64%)
4
(36%)
2
(18%)
Teen birth rates by county
Teen birth rates by age
Teen birth rates by race/ethnicity
Teen abortion rates
Teen rates of STI/HIV
A list of teen pregnancy prevention programs that
currently exist in the community
None of these
22A. WHAT IS THE SOURCE(S) FOR THIS
INFORMATION?
Georgia Division of Public Health, local health
department, Planned Parenthood, Oasis, CDC, staff,
website, G-CAPP, and Guttmacher
MISSION
Does the organization…
22B. Have a clearly defined mission?
Yes
No
Don’t know (DK)
7
(70%)
1
(10%)
1
(10%)
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
23A. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HAVE YOU CONDUCTED A NEEDS ASSESSMENT OR ACCESSED
NEEDS ASSESSMENT DATA ON YOUR COMMUNITY TO GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEEDS,
ASSETS AND RESOURCES RELATED TO TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION?
Yes
No
Don’t know (DK)
2
(18%)
9
(81%)
0
(0%)
- 135 -
23B. HOW DID YOU CONDUCT THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT?
1
(50%)
0
(0%)
1
(50%)
1
(50%)
1
(50%)
Informal discussions with teens
Focus groups
Community survey
Used data from existing Youth Risk Behavior
Survey
Used data from a recent needs assessment
conducted by another group. (Please specify:
TPPI needs assessment by G-CAPP/MOE)
Other (Describe: Informal discussion with
members of community and organizations)
1
(50%)
LOGIC MODEL
Does the organization…
Yes
No
Don’t know
(DK)
24A. Currently have a logic model for any of your teen
pregnancy prevention programs?
2
(18%)
9
(82%)
0
(0%)
24B. Logic model indicate which teen pregnancy-related
behaviors you are targeting (e.g., age at first sex,
contraceptive use)?
24C. Logic model identify both risk and protective factors for
each behavior (i.e., what affects age at first sex or
contraceptive use)?
24D. Logic model include activities addressing these risk
and protective factors?
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Yes
No
Don’t know
(DK)
25A. Has your organization delivered a teen pregnancy
prevention program in the past 12 months?
2
(18%)
9
(82%)
0
(0%)
25B. Thinking about the teen pregnancy prevention program
you delivered most recently, did you identify and think
about various existing evidence-based programs before
you chose your program?
26. Before the teen pregnancy prevention program you
delivered most recently, did you assess the program to
determine its fit with the needs and goals of your
community?
27. Before the teen pregnancy prevention program you
delivered most recently, did you assess your internal
capacity to deliver the program (e.g., number of staff,
staff training, technical
resources, and program budget)?
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
DELIVERY OF TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
- 136 -
28. Thinking about the teen pregnancy prevention program
you delivered most recently, did you develop a written
work plan for your program delivery?
29A. In the last 12 months, did you evaluate the
effectiveness of your teen pregnancy prevention
curricula?
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(100%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
29B. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING EVALUATION STRATEGIES DID YOU USE TO ASSESS THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR CURRICULA?
1
(50%)
Evaluation of the way each activity was
implemented to see if it was delivered exactly as
designed (with fidelity)
Evaluation of youth participation to determine
recruitment and retention by the intended target
population.
Outcome evaluation to measure the change in
each behavior you are trying to affect
Outcome evaluation to measure whether you are
changing the risk or protective factors associated
with these behaviors
Don’t know
1
(50%)
1
(50%)
1
(50%)
0
(0%)
1
(50%)
Other (Specify: Pre/Post test)
30A. AFTER THE EVALUATION
After conducting the evaluation, did you plan
changes to the program based on the evaluation
result?
Yes
No
Don’t know
(DK)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
30B. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE CHANGES MADE TO THE PROGRAM?
N/A
N/A
Selected a program that was a better fit.
Modified the existing curriculum using adaptation
guidance.
Discontinued the current program.
Other: please specify:
______________________
N/A
N/A
SUSTAINABILITY
In the last 12 months, did the
organization…
31. Market your teen pregnancy prevention
programs to partners, funders, or others who
might help you continue delivering or funding the
programs in the future?
- 137 -
Yes
No
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
Don’t know
(DK)
0
(0%)
YOUTH-SERVING ORGANIZATION SURVEY DATA
ANALYSIS
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING EFFORTS AND NEED FOR
T&TA
GTO
Not at all
Somewhat
Very
1
(9%)
7
(64%)
3
(27%)
32. How familiar are you with GTO?
UTILIZATION OF GTO
Yes
No
Don’t know
(DK)
10
(91%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
10
(91%)
10
(91%)
9
(82%)
4
(36%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
7
(64%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Has the organization or someone at
the organization….
33. Adopted the Getting To Outcomes approach
to planning, implementing, and evaluating
evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention
programs?
34. Had formal training on Getting To Outcomes?
35. Received assistance and/or coaching in using
Getting To Outcomes?
36. Been trained on the iGTO web-based system
for teen pregnancy prevention?
37. Used the iGTO web-based system to
complete any of the above activities?
38. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Strongly
Neither Agree
How much do you and your team agree or
disagree with each of these statements?
Agree
or Disagree
1
2
3
4
a. Goals and objectives are primarily for
funders and grant applications
2
(18%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
- 138 -
Strongly
Disagree
5
0
(0%)
6
1
(9%)
7
5
(46%)
b. Our programs would be improved by
modifying them based on evaluation data
8
(73%)
3
(27%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
The extra time and costs required to
implement scientifically proven programs
greatly outweigh the benefits
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
6
(55%)
d. Program staff often know whether a
program is working well without having to
do a formal evaluation
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
4
(36%)
e. Implementing a program that is
mismatched with the values of the local
community will lead to poor
implementation and outcomes
9
(82%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
Time spent writing out all the activities of
a program on a timeline could be better
spent on implementation
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
3
(27%)
1
(9%)
5
(46%)
g. We could better achieve our mission by
devoting resources to regularly gathering
information about the teen pregnancy
prevention needs of the community
5
(46%)
3
(27%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
h. Funding is available for a teen pregnancy
prevention program that produces
positive results
5
(46%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
c.
f.
i.
Changing programs based on evaluation
data will likely cause problems
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
3
(27%)
6
(55%)
j.
Program staff often know whether a
program is working well without having to
do a formal evaluation
3
(27%)
3
(27%)
4
(36%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
Implementing a program that is
mismatched with the values of the local
community will lead to poor
implementation and outcomes
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(27%)
7
(64%)
Time spent writing out all the activities of
a program on a timeline could be better
spent on implementation
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
3
(27%)
5
(46%)
k.
l.
- 139 -
m. We could better achieve our mission by
devoting resources to regularly gathering
information about the teen pregnancy
prevention needs of the community
7
(64%)
2
(18%)
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
n. Our programs would be improved by
modifying them based on evaluation data
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
9
(82%)
o. The extra time and costs required to
implement scientifically proven programs
greatly outweigh the benefits
6
(55%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
p. Program staff often know whether a
program is working well without having to
do a formal evaluation
8
(80%)
1
(10%)
1
(10%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
q. Implementing a program that is
mismatched with the values of the local
community will lead to poor
implementation and outcomes
7
(64%)
3
(27%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(9%)
39. TASK ASSISTANCE FOR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
How much assistance would you and your
team need to carry out this task
out this task …
a. Develop program goals for your new activity
b. Assess how well your new program activity
will fit within other existing program activities
offered to the same target population
c.
Define a target population for your new
activity
d. Measure participant satisfaction
e. Evaluate the activity to ensure that it is
meeting goals and objectives by analyzing
and interpreting data
Need a
great deal
of
assistance
Could carry out
this task, but
would need some
assistance
Could carry out
this task without
any assistance
1
2
(18%)
2
(18%)
2
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
4
(36%)
7
(64%)
4
4
(36%)
1
(9%)
5
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(27%)
4
(36%)
4
(36%)
0
(0%)
3
(27%)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
5
(46%)
4
(36%)
3
(27%)
2
(18%)
3
(27%)
0
(0%)
- 140 -
39. TASK ASSISTANCE FOR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
How much assistance would you and your
team need to carry out this task
out this task …
Need a
great deal
of
assistance
Could carry out
this task, but
would need some
assistance
Could carry out
this task without
any assistance
1
0
(0%)
2
0
(0%)
3
3
(27%)
4
3
(27%)
5
5
(46%)
g. Specify the amount of change expected in
your objectives
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
5
(46%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
h. Assess community strengths in
programming by examining existing
resources such as existing programs and
availability of volunteers
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
4
(36%)
3
(27%)
1
(9%)
i.
Determine if an existing evidence-based
program would meet your goals and
objectives
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
4
(36%)
3
(27%)
1
(9%)
j.
Examine how the new program will fit with
the values of your organization
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
2
(18%)
4
(36%)
k.
For each program activity, measure how
well the implementation followed the original
program design (i.e., fidelity)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
3
(27%)
3
(27%)
l.
Ensure that all new program activities are
linked to the goals and objectives by using a
logic model
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
5
(46%)
2
(18%)
m. Determine if any evidence-based programs
are applicable to your target population
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
5
(46%)
2
(18%)
n. Assess the causes and underlying risk
factors for teen pregnancy in your
community
2
(18%)
2
(18%)
2
(18%)
4
(36%)
1
(9%)
o. Assess whether there are adequate
resources to implement the new program
(e.g., number of staff, staff training,
technical resources, funding)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
5
(46%)
2
(18%)
p. Create timelines for completing all program
tasks
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
5
(46%)
q. Develop a budget that outlines the funding
required for each program activity
0
(0%)
2
(18%)
1
(9%)
5
(46%)
2
(18%)
f.
Identify those who will be responsible for
each task
- 141 -
39. TASK ASSISTANCE FOR TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM
How much assistance would you and your
team need to carry out this task
out this task …
r.
Develop a plan to sustain the program if it is
successful (i.e., determine future funding
sources)
s.
Use results from an evaluation to improve
program delivery the next time it is offered
Need a
great deal
of
assistance
Could carry out
this task, but
would need some
assistance
Could carry out
this task without
any assistance
1
3
(27%)
2
0
(0%)
3
6
(55%)
4
1
(9%)
5
1
(9%)
2
(18%)
0
(0%)
4
(36%)
2
(18%)
3
(27%)
40. TRAINING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (T&TA) NEEDS FOR TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION
Yes, I would like
TA or training
Task
a. Develop program goals for your new activity
b. Assess how well your new program activity will fit within other existing
program activities offered to the same target population
c.
Define a target population for your new activity
d. Measure participant satisfaction
e. Evaluate the activity to ensure that it is meeting goals and objectives by
analyzing and interpreting data
f.
Identify those who will be responsible for each task
g. Specify the amount of change expected in your objectives
h. Assess community strengths in programming by examining existing
resources such as existing programs and availability of volunteers
i. Determine if an existing evidence-based program would meet your goals and
objectives
j.
Examine how the new program will fit with the values of your organization
k.
For each program activity, measure how well the implementation followed the
original program design (i.e., fidelity)
l. Ensure that all new program activities are linked to the goals and objectives
by using a logic model
m. Determine if any evidence-based programs are applicable to your target
population
n. Assess the causes and underlying risk factors for teen pregnancy in your
community
o. Assess whether there are adequate resources to implement the new program
(e.g., number of staff, staff training, technical resources, funding)
- 142 -
6
(55%)
4
(36%)
3
(27%)
7
(64%)
9
(82%)
3
(27%)
8
(73%)
7
(64%)
6
(55%)
8
(73%)
8
(73%)
5
(46%)
4
(36%)
7
(64%)
5
(46%)
40. TRAINING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (T&TA) NEEDS FOR TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH
TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION
Yes, I would like
TA or training
Task
p. Create timelines for completing all program tasks
q. Develop a budget that outlines the funding required for each program
activity
r. Develop a plan to sustain the program if it is successful (i.e., determine future
funding sources)
s. Use results from an evaluation to improve program delivery the next time it is
offered
t.
Use iGTO to support program selection and implementation
u.
No TA requested on any of these topics.
4
(36%)
6
(55%)
9
(82%)
6
(55%)
8
(73%)
1
(9%)
FOR INQUIRIES ABOUT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT CONTACT:
Tekla Evans, MPH, CHES, PMP
Evaluation Research Manager
Messages of Empowerment, Productions LLC
3355 Lenox Road, Suite 730 * Atlanta, GA 30326
678-510-1718 (office) * 678-510-1716 (fax)
[email protected]
FOR INQUIRIES ABOUT THE COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP CONTACT:
Donna B. Elliston, DrPH, MSPH
Project Director
G-CAPP * 1450 West Peachtree, Suite 200 * Atlanta, GA 30309
404-475-6061 Phone
404-523-7753 Fax
[email protected]
- 143 -
Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Collaborative Partnership
Richmond County (Augusta, GA)
- 144 -
`