For your second discussion post for Week Seven, you will respond to the following prompt:
A variety of benefits can come from out-of-schools activities. Based on the articles, what do you see as the most valuable benefits? Propose a policy or change that could aide in more students in having access to positive out-of-school activities.
Youth & Society 43(4) 1381 –1406
© 2011 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0044118X10386077
http://yas.sagepub.com
386077 YAS43410.1177/0044118X103 86077Jones and DeutschYouth & Society © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo 2University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Corresponding Author: Jeffrey N. Jones, Western Michigan University, 1903 W. Michigan Ave., 2440 Sangren Hall, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008 Email: [email protected]
Relational Strategies in After-School Settings: How Staff– Youth Relationships Support Positive Development
Jeffrey N. Jones1 and Nancy L. Deutsch2
Abstract
Staff–youth relationships are a key strength of after-school settings, though more research is needed to understand the actual processes whereby these interpersonal connections lead to beneficial outcomes. This qualitative study focuses on the relational strategies that staff employ within an urban youth organization, and the ways in which those strategies contribute to a posi- tive developmental climate. Researchers observed staff–youth interactions for a year and conducted a series of interviews with 17 youth between the ages of 12 and 18. We found three specific relational strategies that staff used to develop relationships with youth. These were minimizing relational distance, active inclusion, and attention to proximal relational ties. These strategies contribute to an overall supportive culture, suggesting a relational pedagogy in this after-school setting. The staff–youth relationships serve as the foundation for both youth engagement in programs and the promotion of positive developmental outcomes.
1382 Youth & Society 43(4)
Keywords
after-school programs, adult–youth relationships, positive youth development
Anecdotal as well as empirical evidence suggest that youth organizations can provide caring environments that promote youth development (Hirsch, 2005; McLaughlin, 2000). These community-level interventions often take a strengths-based approach in line with the emerging positive youth develop- ment movement (Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005; National Clear- inghouse on Families & Youth, 2009) and are frequently locally constructed to target specific youth needs (Dubois, Doolittle, Yates, Silverthorn, & Tebes, 2006). There is increasing interest in the broader developmental potential of after-school settings (Hirsch, 2005; Larson, 2000; Riggs & Greenberg, 2004). Whereas previous work has focused on youth outcomes, researchers are increasingly concerned with the processes that contribute to outcomes (Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, & Noam, 2006). In recent years, a literature has evolved concerning the importance of social capital for youth in low- resource communities, citing after-school programs as places where social capital may be gained (Bottrell, 2009; Jarrett, Sullivan, & Watkins, 2005). One potential source of social capital is nonfamilial adults, and research indi- cates that relationships between youth and caring adults are paramount to the success of after-school programs (DuBois & Karcher, 2005; Rhodes, 2004). This qualitative study focuses on the specific relational strategies employed by staff and explores the mechanism by which these strategies contribute to a supportive culture for youth. We draw from youth and staff perceptions of interpersonal relationships in an urban Boys & Girls Club. Our research con- firms previous findings and extends the discussion on adult–youth relation- ships in after-school settings to consider the specific means by which staff can draw on these relations to promote engagement in developmental activities and programs.
In 2002, the National Research Council (NRC) reported that youth organi- zations provide social assets for youth that can promote healthy development. Indeed, researchers have documented a variety of youth outcomes associated with participation in youth organizations including higher self-esteem, increased motivation, and academic achievement (Larson, 2000; Mahoney, Lord, & Carryl, 2005). Expanding on research documenting specific outcomes, research- ers are increasingly studying after-school programs in terms of the broader developmental needs of youth. Positive youth development (PYD) refers to efforts aimed at helping youth achieve their potential, viewing youth as having competencies to be developed rather than risk factors to be prevented
Jones and Deutsch 1383
(Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005; National Clearinghouse on Families & Youth, 2009). Outcomes associated with positive youth development range from spe- cific domains, such as academic achievement and avoidance of risk-taking behaviors (i.e., gang activity or pregnancy), to more conceptual domains which have been termed the “5 Cs” of PYD: character, connection, confi- dence, competence, and caring (Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005). Researchers have found that interactions that occur in nontraditional and out-of-school settings can support important prosocial skills (Noam & Tillinger, 2004) and contribution, which is theorized as an outcome when other PYD constructs are present (Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005). The NRC report (2002) proposes several recommendations to advance the potential of after-school settings and suggests that youth organizations need to promote the development of both personal and social assets. Yet the report also concludes that we know little about the processes that occur within organizations which contribute to youth outcomes.
Staff–Youth Relationships A promising area of research on after-school settings is adult–youth relation- ships. This literature is informed by research on teacher–student relation- ships and mentoring. Spencer (2006) describes the mentoring dynamic as a relational process. Staff in after-school organizations contribute to the essen- tial features of these settings by creating appropriate structure in a safe envi- ronment and by promoting a sense of belonging, feelings of personal efficacy, and positive social norms (Mahoney, Eccles, & Larson, 2004). A sense of belonging is critical in healthy development. This is facilitated by supportive relationships (DuBois & Karcher, 2005; Rhodes, 2004), which some have suggested are often less available in the life experiences of disadvantaged youth (Bottrell, 2009; Hamilton et al., 2006). Mentoring relationships influ- ence not only academic achievement but also psychosocial development (Larson, 2000).
Prior work has demonstrated that relationships with staff are key to youths’ attachments to after-school programs as home-places (Deutsch & Hirsch, 2002; Hirsch, 2005). The club-as-home model, in which youth develop an emotional attachment to an organization driven primarily by psychosocial aspects of the place, points to how relationships can contribute to an overarching socioemo- tional experience for youth. According to this model, aspects of the program such as feeling cared about and having close relationships with adult staff are important components of the overall environments of after-school settings that may keep youth involved as they age. These relationships may then serve as
1384 Youth & Society 43(4)
important sources of social capital for youth (Bottrell, 2009; Brunie, 2009; Lin, 2001).
Urban youth programs are also social learning environments; adults can facilitate learning by providing opportunities to overcome challenges at an appropriate developmental level (Larson & Walker, 2006). The literature on social capital suggests that interpersonal interactions are one factor which can lead to positive individual and group outcomes (Brunie, 2009). Lin (2001) describes social capital as the use of connections and relationships to achieve goals; this interpersonal engagement opens access to new resources. Stack (1996) considers capital as an interconnected web of “commitments and obligations” (p. xv) between individuals. Social capital, constructed and maintained through adult–youth relationships, can promote youth resilience (Bottrell, 2009). Youth organizations stand at a unique developmental crossroads in the ecological framework of youth; they are able to support and bridge relationships across the settings in youths’ lives (Noam & Fiore, 2004). Thus, successful after-school programs may have a relational culture that supports youth through multiple processes. The role of adult staff in after-school settings is complex and the research literature will benefit from more empirical descriptions of what posi- tive involvement means in terms of youth experience (Hilfinger Messias, Fore, McLoughlin, & Parra-Medina, 2005).
Relational Strategies and Youth Participation The relational view of adolescent development focuses on the engagement between individuals. This framework can be useful in creating environments that encourage youth by supporting positive interactions that build on internal motivations and interests (Noddings, 2005). Relational psychology posits that learning takes place only through the interactions between people; learn- ing is realized indirectly through active dialogue. The relational experience is then transferred to engagement with the “text” or the material to be learned (Bingham, 2004). In schools, of course, this text is the curriculum. However, in after-school settings, in the absence of the curricular demands of the schools (Pace, 2003), the text is positive youth development more broadly; many youth organizations focus on supporting youth competencies across domains from academics to prosocial behaviors to risk aversion. The rela- tional ties that emerge through patterns of interactions between club mem- bers and staff contribute to developmental change; they form “developmental stepping stones” (p. 50) on which youths’ later experiences build (Fredriksen & Rhodes, 2004).
Jones and Deutsch 1385
The relational model has implications for the potential of the after-school space as a social learning environment. This builds from a constructivist perspective, one that views staff and youth as partners, or co-constructors, of learning experiences (Jones & Perkins, 2006). Interpersonal relationships are critical in development, as youth construct new knowledge in social contexts (Vygotsky, 1978). This is facilitated through caring relationships with adult mentors in proximal interactions (Goldstein, 1999). Supportive relationships promote learning and push youth to participate in new activities (Fredriksen & Rhodes, 2004).
Aitken, Fraser, and Price (2007) talk about negotiations in informal learn- ing environments, which involve trust and the sharing of power and authority. Indeed adult–youth relationships are not perceived by youth as uniformly sup- portive across settings. Youth contrast their relational experiences in the vari- ous spheres of their lives. They report higher levels of relational trust with Boys & Girls Club staff compared with teachers in the school setting, articu- late increased feelings of community when they feel respected, and describe a sense of connection in the after-school setting (Deutsch & Jones, 2008). A sense of social trust makes youth feel agentic and valued. This is essential in building social and relational capital for minority youth, who are “more likely to present as disconnected, if not disengaged” (Kelly, 2009, p. 528) from youth serving settings.
Pedagogy refers to a theoretical perspective of instruction and interaction. The relational approach that we document in this article reflects a conscious effort to establish deep connections with the youth and to transfer this engage- ment to the “text” of positive youth development. Participation in after-school programs can be facilitated by positive staff–youth relationships (Jarrett et al., 2005; Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005) and can promote personal, behavioral, and academic competencies (Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003; Durlak & Weissberg, 2007). It is also important to note that cultural and con- textual factors influence the decision to participate in after-school programs (Perkins et al., 2007). Participation then must be considered as a process as well as an outcome within the relational space of the after-school setting.
This qualitative study extends our understanding of the processes that operate within after-school settings. We focus on the importance of the staff– youth relationship in the youths’ sense of place. We were guided by several questions aimed at understanding the strengths of adult–youth relationships in after-school settings: (a) what specific strategies do staff employ that are rela- tional in nature, (b) what about these relationships support the social learning environment, and (c) how do staff use their relationships and engagement
1386 Youth & Society 43(4)
with youth to promote constructs and activities related to positive youth development?
Through observations and interviews, we find that staff engage in specific relational strategies to build their relationships with youth. Youth report expe- riencing these relational strategies as supportive. Staff develop a capital through the relationships that they exchange for meaningful participation in programs aimed at promoting positive youth outcomes. These interactional processes thereby contribute to a relational pedagogy, or a supportive culture, in this after- school setting specifically based on adult–youth relationships. These findings have implications for after-school programs and for social policies designed to promote healthy adult–youth relationships in the community.
Method Youth organizations provide a social context within which youth engage in learning experiences through patterns of interpersonal relationships. Way (2005) observes that meaningful research is a process of engagement, more than a struggle for objectivity. We chose qualitative methods to study relation- ships from the perspective of the youth and staff members in an after-school program. These research strategies are well suited for community-based research and can inform more ecologically sensitive data collection (Stein & Mankowski, 2004; Stewart, 2000) as well as allowing for in-depth examina- tion of interpersonal processes in context.
Site and Sample The Midtown Boys & Girls Club is a boisterous and active space located in a community recreation building. It is situated on the grounds of a public middle school in a lower-income neighborhood of a small mid-Atlantic city. The club operates on a drop-in model, wherein youth can come and go with or without participation in any of the club’s more formal programs. Because of its low annual membership fee, it is a de facto public space available to youth from across the city, although primarily used by youth in the local neighborhood. Many members attend the middle school right next door, though others attend local elementary and high schools and take district buses that bring them to the club. At designated times, the club has access to the gym facilities of the school as well as the adjacent and expansive playing fields. There are designated areas for the various functions of the club, including a snack area, an education room with computer access, a teen room, an open great room with game tables, and several smaller rooms for programs and
Jones and Deutsch 1387
meetings. Though these spaces have defined purposes, these shift with the daily needs and activities at the club. The after-school club has both organized programs and activities, including psychosocial programs, tutoring, and com- munity service groups, and more informal, unstructured time. Youth interact with fellow club members, staff, and volunteers in a typical day.
The larger ethnographic sample included all of the youth and staff that participated at the club over the course of one year. This sample was inclusive of the 12 staff and 250 to 300 registered club members (there were approxi- mately four staff and 50 to 70 youth present on a typical day). We worked with staff to identify club members aged 12 to 18 that attended regularly or that had been involved with the club for an extended period of time to pur- posefully select our interview sample. We were particularly interested in the perceptions of those individuals that were actively engaged in the setting and had invested in the setting with their time. Based on these criteria, the first author approached 26 youth, 23 (86%) of whom agreed to participate in the study. Seventeen (74%) returned consent forms and comprised the interview sample. These 17 youth were approximately balanced in regard to gender and age group (12-14 vs. 15-18). The majority were African American (all indi- viduals mentioned are African American unless otherwise noted). Two youth report other ethnicities (White, mixed ethnicity). Of the 12 staff members at Midtown during the study, approximately half were male, seven were African American, five were White, and many came from similar economic back- grounds as the club members, some even from their neighborhood. Thus, Midtown was a more culturally congruent setting than the youths’ schools. It is well documented that the teaching population is primarily White, female, and middle class (Banks et al., 2005). The literature on teacher–student rela- tionships has documented that this can create contradictions, resistance, and a cultural space between teachers and their students (Merryfield, 2000; Ogbu, 1992). As documented below, this contrasts with the environment at Midtown, wherein staff used culture, along with other factors, to reduce the relational distance between themselves and the youth.
Data-Collection Strategies Researchers took the role of participant–observer (see Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994), recording observations through in-depth field notes. The participant–observer approach yields a contextualized view of individuals’ everyday interpretations of their experiences (Miller, 1997). Observation as a research strategy is ideally suited to the study of the ongoing and reciprocal nature of interaction in social settings; observations gather data
1388 Youth & Society 43(4)
that are independent of youth and staff perceptions of their relationships. The first author was engaged in the research site three to four afternoons per week, typically for two to four hr per visit, over the course of one year. The second author visited and recorded field notes for girls-only programs and other spe- cial events. Levels of participation of course can vary within the participant– observer approach. We played an active role in the research setting. Like the staff that we observed, we minimized relational distance when appropriate by wearing casual clothes, using colloquial language, and in general approximat- ing what Mandell (1988) refers to as the least-adult role in interaction and data collection. Staff perceptions were captured through field notes of informal discussions that took place during observations throughout the study period.
After spending five months developing relationships and trust with youth and staff the first author conducted a semistructured interview with each of the 17 sample youth and follow up interviews with 11 of the sample youth. Interviews can aid in the discovery of meanings that people assign to interac- tions (Seidman, Tseng, & Weisner, 2006). The interviews included a series of questions building on earlier research (i.e., identity exploration and develop- ment) as well as questions probing themes that emerged from observations at Midtown (e.g., staff–youth relationships, relational differences across set- tings).1 The median length of interviews with youth participants was 29 min, and interviews ranged from 19 to 50 min. There was typically two months between the first and second interview.
Analysis The research process was iterative. Emerging themes of study originated in on-site observations. These were developed in the context of existing theory and literature and through critical discourse in meetings between the first and second authors. The first semistructured interviews included a series of ques- tions building on these themes. As these themes were identified, we fashioned follow-up interview questions to capture youth responses to these phenomena and recorded in detail all staff–youth interactions in observations. The field notes were analyzed as a source of data and additionally were used to contex- tualize the patterns identified through the analysis of interview data. This is a potent approach that can yield a deep understanding of social processes in context (De Groot, 2002). The triangulation of data was possible in analysis with data from multiple sources; observations, interviews, and documents from the organization. NVivo, a computer software program, was used as an analytic tool in the research process. This facilitated the examination of open (preexisting) and focused (emergent) codes that were applied to these qualita- tive data sources (Marshall & Rossman, 1999).
Jones and Deutsch 1389
Results and Discussion
Overall, youth in our study describe rich relationships with the staff. Indeed, several name staff as the most influential figures in their lives. For example, Jay, a 17-year-old male, reports, “The single [most influential] person— probably Mr. R. [a director] because he was a good part of my life. Anytime I get in trouble I would come to see him or he’d talk to me or he was just a good person to be around.” The supportive nature of youths’ relationships with staff is consistently invoked as a major contributor to the overall culture of the after-school program:
He made it so fun, and he did so much stuff with us. He tried to be our dad, our big brother; he tried to be our everything. And I think that’s maybe because he showed us that he cared. (Kanaya, 15-year-old, female)
You know sometimes when you walk in here, people will look after you and stuff. I think that’s an important thing . . . But I’m saying that they don’t just look after you sometimes, they actually care about you. (Helen, 12-year-old, female)
This is not to suggest that the relationships and interactions we observed were uniformly or universally positive. Indeed, the youth that we interviewed share varying relational experiences in the club setting:
It’s just like some of the staff, I know that they can be playful and some can be mean, and some can be boring and sit around a desk all day. (Michael, 12-year-old, male)
Yet the majority of youths’ descriptions of their relationships with staff were positive. These relationships appear to be paramount to youths’ affirma- tive experiences in this setting. Below, we unpack the strategies that staff use to build relationships with youth and consider how these relationships support engagement in programs and positive youth development.
Relational Strategies Early on in the study, it became apparent that the staff were dedicated to reach- ing all kids in the club and making the most of their connections with youth:
Some of the kids are very intelligent. I feel all the kids are smart in some way—they might not show it this way, but they’re smart. So you
1390 Youth & Society 43(4)
gotta open up different ideas and different activities that grabs that part of their attention. And then you get their focus, and they’ll be able to participate in different events. (Grant, Midtown staff)
As we observed staff like Grant using individual interests and connections to engage youth, we became interested in the specific actions that staff took to build relationships with youth that were then used for the benefit of youth engagement (i.e., involvement in programs and activities) and positive devel- opment (i.e., encouraging competencies such as prosocial behavior and social skills). We came to conceptualize this phenomenon as “relational strategies.”
Three specific strategies emerged through the analysis of data: minimizing relational distance, active inclusion, and attention to proximal relationships. As staff members make deliberate attempts to form positive, lasting relation- ships, they find success in downplaying authoritative roles, highlighting mutual interests, and making cultural connections with youth. This strategy, which minimizes the “distance” between the adults and youth, contributes to their ability to make connections with the teens. They make efforts to actively include marginalized youth, reducing peer rejection. Attention to proximal relational ties, such as youths’ relationships with other club members and family, in addressing conflicts and problem solving, is also used to build con- nections and support positive outcomes. Below, we address each of these strategies individually before presenting an example that illustrates how these actions collectively contribute to a relational pedagogy that supports youth engagement and development.
Minimizing Relational Distance Age and staff–youth relationships. One of the challenges of working with
teens is that part of the task of adolescence is the exploration of individual autonomy. In the process of developing increased independence, youth often push the limits of adult authority figures, testing their emerging adulthood within the bounds of their relationships with adults. Thus, the distance between teenagers and the adults who interact with them can seem like an unbridgeable gulf. One of the relational strategies that staff use in this setting is to deliber- ately minimize age distinctions. Often staff are youthful themselves. This youth organization tends to hire young adults of college age who often share a common background with youth in terms of neighborhood, race, and ethnicity. Indeed, when visitors and community members enter the club, oftentimes they have difficulty delineating staff from youth. We saw staff capitalize on this in their interactions with youth. And youth are quick to note the close proximity
Jones and Deutsch 1391
in age. When asked about the influence of club staff, a Midtown club member observes,
Staff, they’re just so funny and most of them are college students. They’re pretty close to my age anyway so they’re fun and they’re open. They’re like—on the upside, they’re like mature teenagers. (C. J., 15-year-old, female)
Other researchers have found that youth perceive staff as “peer-like” adults and that this is a strength of these relationships (Hirsch, 2005). However, this also suggests a danger of this relational strategy: its potential to tip over to disrespect and a lack of authority. For the most part, we found that staff balanced minimizing age differences with retaining adult authority. C. J. highlights this as follows:
At school it’s like strict discipline. You have to do exactly what they say no matter what you want to do. At the Club it’s like you can just play around with staff and they’re more like your peers, but you treat them with more respect because they’re not your equals. (C. J., 15-year-old, female)
Culture. Hirsch (2005) calls after-school programs “One-stop shopping for mentoring” (p. 57). He notes that mentoring relationships are strongest when there is a cultural connection between youth and staff. Staff consistently used slang and culturally resonant language in addressing youth.
In an organized program, one of the male teens stood up and grabbed his baseball hat. Craig (staff) said, “Where you going?” The teen replied, “To the bathroom.” Craig joked, “You taking your hat? O.K. I’ll see you later, dawg.” There was laughter from the whole group of teens. (Field note excerpt)
This use of teen language and idioms aids in eliminating relational differ- ences of age as well as culture. The staff member, through his use of local teen slang demonstrates his familiarity and comfort with the teens’ culture, both blurring the age difference and highlighting the shared culture between them. He makes himself a part of their group through his discourse in the informal and ongoing process of building relationships. After this interaction, Craig got the teens to work on a college preparation program. He took the opportunity to engage the youth in the program, thereby cashing in this social/relational
1392 Youth & Society 43(4)
capital for increased participation in an activity designed to promote posi- tive youth development (in this case, academic goal-setting and college guidance).
The use of narrative contributes to a cultural connection that, along with the other techniques, minimizes relational distance (Gee, 1996). In an organized career preparation program, a young female staff member used personal nar- rative to share her own experiences and highlight aspects of her background which were common to many of the youth:
I came up from nothing, nothing. I lived with relatives because my parents weren’t there at all. But I studied my ass off; there was no one to help me, but me. I got good grades and still was in lots of extracur- riculars. I could have gone any place I wanted, but I chose here. But you got to learn to deal; I had to deal with being Black in a white school. I studied my ass off in high school and still struggled my first year . . . Now I’m 20 years old and have a good GPA . . . As a Black woman, people don’t take me seriously—but I won’t have that, I worked my ass off to get here and I’ve got a plan. Ten years from now, I will be retiring. I will run my own company. My back-ups have back-ups. (Field note excerpt, italics added)
In the culturally relevant pedagogy literature, methods and materials are considered in light of the textual, social, cultural, and personal lives of youth (Hefflin, 2002). Here, the staff member shared personal experiences of race, gender, and self-empowerment. She used her narrative to try to motivate these teens by minimizing the social distance between them. She then had enthusiastic participation in the goal-setting activity that followed. A 15-year- old female club member comments on the benefit of this personal and cul- tural connection,
I see where certain staff members have gone from. She’s a graduate student at the university and she’s one of the few Black graduate stu- dents who I look up to. She’s just a real role model for me and I see from her what I can become.
Mutual interests. The relational distance between staff and youth is also diminished through dialogue involving areas of mutual interest. This occurs naturally and freely in the highly social atmosphere of the club. Such dia- logue not only provides a vehicle to start a conversation but can lead to pro- social outcomes. A promising area for supporting development is through the
Jones and Deutsch 1393
structured voluntary activities common in after-school settings; the connec- tions that are forged through play and guided exploration promote intrinsic motivation for youth (Larson, 2000). Staff create these opportunities and play an important role in them through their associations with youth. During the year of this study, a staff member started a popular program with a group of younger girls around a shared enthusiasm for dance. The following describes the process whereby staff engage youth in an activity of mutual interest that includes opportunities for positive developmental experiences that promote competence, confidence, and connection in particular.
The staff member was leading a group of girls (6-16 years old) through a dance routine. There were 12 girls in two lines doing a really com- plicated routine and as many female college volunteers showing dance moves and offering encouragement. After the girls learned a new sequence of dance steps, the older club members would model new steps and lend a word of support; “That’s good, but after the turn, you go like this.” The girls were all beaming with the attention from the staff and volunteers. (Field note excerpt)
Researchers have identified these kinds of interactions, with staff model- ing youth, and in turn, youth working with other youth as tri-level mentoring (Deutsch, 2007, 2008). In this example, the shared interest in dance provides the context for this process.
Staff also bring areas of personal expertise and experience to the club. When youth show an interest, the staff can use this point of connection to build on these impromptu teachable moments. Here, a club member remarks on this kind of interaction:
Oh, well there’s this staff and he sees that I like music and he lets us play music that I like. So he gives me the opportunity, and like he kind of shares the same interest that I like—it makes me want to hang around him more. (Curtis, 15-year-old, male)
One of the staff at the Midtown Boys & Girls Club was a sophomore public health student at a local college. She ran a girls-only psychoeducational pro- gram aimed at sharing information about the transition to adolescence and adulthood empowering young girls. Although this is a national Boys & Girls Club program with a set curriculum focused around various issues faced by girls, including health and self-esteem, we observed this staff draw on youth interest and her personal knowledge and interests to raise the level of discussion
1394 Youth & Society 43(4)
in this program. On one afternoon, she organized a review session using a game show format. There were four topic areas: media influence and body image, puberty, sexual myths and sexual truths, and eating disorders.
Team 1 chose “Sexual Myths and Truths” for 500 points. Shaunta asked, “Tell me the only 100% way that a young woman can guarantee that she doesn’t become pregnant. Name two other methods of avoiding pregnancy.” Team 1 got together. Team 2 also huddled together to dis- cuss it, and one of the youth replied, “Abstinence is the only 100% way to be sure not to get pregnant. Condoms and birth control pills are two other ways.” (Field note excerpt)
Every time the girls answered something, right or wrong, Shaunta made sure that she clarified and explained, so that it was not just about answering the question or getting the points but about truly understanding the information. Through the activity, the staff member also talked about her classes in college and how she always does better when there is active involvement instead of just lecturing. It was evident that Shaunta was both knowledgeable and pas- sionate about her profession, and this had a positive impact on the experience of the club members. She built on both her enthusiasm for the subject and her positive relationship with the girls in the group to engage them in this targeted activity aimed at decreasing sexual risk-taking behaviors.
Overall, staff used shared interests and cultural connections to minimize the relational distance between themselves and the teens. They then capital- ized on youths’ views of them as “mature teenagers” to engage youth in activi- ties aimed at promoting positive development.
Active Inclusion Another relational strategy employed by staff in after-school settings is active inclusion. We observed staff purposefully promote positive peer interactions in the club. Prior research has pointed out how access to youths’ friendship networks makes it possible for staff to observe, respond to, and intervene in teens’ peer groups to facilitate positive social interactions (Hirsch, 2005). We saw staff purposely facilitate, enforce, and model positive peer relationships. Such active inclusion occurs in both formal and informal programming.
Sometimes staff use this strategy to bring new club members into existing groups. At announcements one winter afternoon, a staff member brought a young male to the front of the group saying, “This is Brennan, he’s new. Everybody say hi. Naw, you need to show respect, that wasn’t nearly loud
Jones and Deutsch 1395
enough.” During a meeting of an all-boys discussion group, that will be dis- cussed in-depth later, the staff leader balanced inclusion with respecting the autonomy of the current group members.
A male club member came over to the table and asked what was going on. The staff member described the program and asked, “What, do you want to join?” The youth shrugged his shoulders and said, “Maybe, sure.” Grant said, “I’ll check with the guys and get back with you.” He started to walk away, but Grant stopped him, “You can watch for today, right guys?” Just like that, the new guy was included. (Field note excerpt)
In this case, the staff gave the youth the ultimate power to include or exclude the youth but modeled positive behavior by inviting him to join and indicating that he could stay for the meeting. This youth joined the group and they ulti- mately created posters highlighting positive themes that they had been dis- cussing. Both staff and youth report more positive interactions in youth-led activities (Jones & Perkins, 2006). Peer acceptance is of course critically important for adolescents. Giving power to youth to lead the acceptance of new members within expected and modeled bounds can minimize peer rejec- tion while increasing youth leadership. Active inclusion then strengthens rela- tional ties on two levels: staff–youth and youth–youth.
The examples above are ones where staff made deliberate attempts to include marginalized youth. Active inclusion is also achieved when staff shares authority by assigning leadership roles for youth. This builds the relational ties between teens and adults by pulling the youth into the circle of adult authority and responsibility. An example of this could be seen when Midtown’s new club director arrived. He wasted no time in bringing youth into leadership positions in the club. When introducing himself to the teens at the club, he said,
. . . That’s why I know that you are my leaders. These kids will look to you more than me, so you need to be there with me. We need you, you all make a difference, and the younger kids look up to you more than you know . . . (Field note excerpt)
The director emphasized the importance of teens’ relationships with younger club members in an attempt to build their feelings of responsi- bility within the club. By highlighting and supporting these older-youth/ younger-youth relationships, staff are giving adolescents a valued role in the club, which may help promote positive social norms and development (see Deutsch, 2005).
1396 Youth & Society 43(4)
Attention to Proximal Relational Ties and Social Networks
The organizational structure of the club allows staff unique opportunities to use relationships to bridge developmental contexts and provide youth with practical and emotional support that goes beyond their experiences in the club. In this club, staff often know youths’ families and teachers, allowing them to draw on and address youths’ experiences and relationships across social contexts. Tyler, a popular staff member, shares how staff can provide emo- tional support to youth,
Sometimes one of our kids will have a death in their family, and they don’t want to talk to their mother or father about it, and they will talk to a staff member. Once they talk to us, they feel a whole lot better. Anything that goes on at home—they’ll come to us. It’s like a second home, and we’re like their second parents. (Field note excerpt)
We conceptualize staff’s abilities to use relationships to bridge develop- mental contexts as careful attention to proximal relational ties and suggest that this constitutes a relational strategy in this setting. This takes place subtly and often, as staff have access to peer groups and family members. Staff draw on these resources in providing support and resolving conflicts. They take the time to work through disagreements with peers. Staff not only inform parents and families of events at the club but also take steps to involve parents in the conflict resolution process. Tyler talks about involving both peers and family in conflict resolution,
Generally, the fights would start from something that wasn’t meant to happen, but did by accident. But once the kids sit down and talk about and see it’s just about this foolishness right here, they understand and apologize to each other, and go on their way. But some starts over simple foolishness and elevates. But we take care of that in a quick and quiet manner. Keep our kids safe, keep the parents informed of what’s going on—let them know that this is the positive place for kids. (Field note excerpt)
Here is another example that we recorded through observations started as a playground scuffle:
A volunteer out on the field pulled two boys apart that were pushing each other. He had the two take a “time-out” on the bleachers, though
Jones and Deutsch 1397
R. C. ducked behind a dumpster and tried to sneak out of the situation. When Tyler, the staff member, found that R. C. had been fighting, he said, “We’re gonna have to suspend you from the club, this isn’t the first time.” Shortly thereafter, R. C.’s mom showed up at the front, and Tyler called, “Ma’am can I talk to you for a moment.” He conversed with her and the volunteer while R. C. went inside to get his book bag. The mother was upset, until the staff member explained how the situ- ation unfolded between the two friends. (Field note excerpt)
In this instance, both peers and family were involved in resolving the imme- diate conflict. The staff worked with the parent in assessing an appropriate consequence and formulating a plan to work with the youth to modify his behavior, allowing further participation at the club. The staff’s access to par- ents and friends allows for this drawing of strengths from multiple, proximal relationships in the youths’ lives. As many teens have been attending these programs since they were little, staff are often familiar with youths’ families and friends. In fact, many youth have siblings and cousins within the same club. This allows for more relational approaches to problem solving. This is a unique source of potential strength for after-school programs, wherein the adults often have more direct and immediate access to family members and friends than do adults in other settings, such as school. This strategy exempli- fies after-school programs’ capability to bridge relationships between settings of youths’ lives (Noam & Fiore, 2004).
Although the preceding examples serve to illustrate how relational strate- gies lead to participation and processes that support beneficial outcomes, often specific outcomes cannot be mapped directly onto specific strategies. We suggest that the relational strategies in the aggregate contribute to a cul- ture that engages youth in activities and interactional processes which in turn support positive youth development and its associated outcomes.
Toward a Relational Pedagogy: The Example of Grant’s Group Formal programs in after-school settings provide a context for engaging youth in activities that support positive and prosocial interactions. In this section, we use an example from an all-boys’ psychoeducational program, led by Grant, to illustrate how staff use several strategies in concert. The program we observed was the local implementation of a national Boys and Girls Club program that attempts to foster responsibility and positive behavior in young adolescent males.2 At Midtown, this program is particularly intended for those that are
1398 Youth & Society 43(4)
behaviorally at risk. Grant shared how he uses the program to engage the club members:
Basically, these are all the guys that won’t listen. They leave all the time and cause trouble. I brought them all in here—put them all in the same room. I’m pretty lenient with them, as long as they get done what they need to get done. (Field note excerpt)
“What they need to get done” is a curriculum developed to promote posi- tive choices among early adolescent boys. Observations showed a conscious effort on Grant’s part to employ relational strategies to engage the boys in the group, thereby encouraging positive development through both the program curriculum and group interactions. Grant uses multiple strategies in concert to create a setting in which his relationship with the boys serves as the back- bone for this group.
To set the stage, it was a dreary January afternoon. Grant was already in the reading room with his group. Six male club members (all 12-13 years old) were scattered around the room on chairs and beanbags. As the guys settled in, Grant explained their purpose to the first author, who was observing the group:
It’s all about these guys working together. Every time we meet, we have an activity like this poster, and then we do this program. It’s a series of cards that they read with problems to work through. And they write about it in these journals. (Field note excerpt)
From the start, Grant took steps to minimize relational differences. He did this by acting a bit adolescent himself, joining the group as they all picked ad hoc nicknames for the afternoon,
Grant said, “Abe, you can be—who’s that old guy in the Karate Kid?” Derrick answered, “Miyagee?” Grant said, “Yeah Mr. Miyakee.” Derrick named Marcus, “Skull-master,” as he has a shaved head. Derrick got dubbed, “Fore-less,” as Grant said, “You ain’t got to forehead—look at that.” J. T. was named “Hideous.” (Field note excerpt)
This interaction not only made Grant seem closer to the youth in terms of age and culture but also worked to actively include all youth. Grant ensured that all the teens were included and given mock nicknames. By going about it in this way, the teasing becomes inclusionary rather than exclusionary.
Jones and Deutsch 1399
One could imagine that the development of ad hoc nicknames could become hurtful for rejected teens. Yet Grant’s involvement maintains a level of friendly banter that puts everyone in the “line of fire,” so to speak, in a non- threatening way.
Following this, Grant took part in the type of horseplay that often occurs in adolescent circles. He threw a pencil to each of the guys. J. T. said, “Don’t throw that at me.” Grant said, “You can’t make that whining sound—I mean it.” He made a funny sound and a gesture; at this the whole group broke out in laughter. He then passed out Ho-Ho’s, a contraband snack for the group. Grant even allowed a bit of roughhousing;
J. T. said, “It’s my birthday today.” Marcus and Derrick started giving him his birthday blows, trying to punch him 12 times. When they got a little rough, Grant said, “Hey not in the back, just in the arm or the leg.” (Field note excerpt)
Grant employed youthful mannerisms (throwing pencils, roughhousing), and emulated the idioms of the teens’ speech (silly nicknames, mimicking whining) to minimize relational differences and to make a closer cultural con- nection with the youth. However, he also monitored their behavior, reining them back in when they began to cross the line of what would be considered by most youth-serving organizations as acceptable behavior.
Through these interactions, Grant was bonding with the youth in a careful and orchestrated way. However, when teasing became too personal or horse- play too rough, he stepped in to redirect the group. At one point Marcus, the group’s president (an elected position), told another boy to shut up. Grant intervened, saying, “Hey you’re president, what do you need to do?” Marcus said, “Apologize.” Turning to Derrick smiling he said, “I apologize Derrick.” Grant’s established relationship and rapport with the group allowed him to enforce his authority when needed without risking the adolescents’ disen- gagement from the group. He was the “mature teenager” who still demanded their respect.
Later in the meeting, Grant showed how close attention to proximal rela- tional ties can facilitate youth engagement in organized club activities and programs.
Grant asked, “Are you all going to be here Friday? We’re gonna have a special treat—pizza.” All of them were going to be there, but Derrick. He said, “I don’t know, my mom has this thing Fridays.” Marcus told him, “Just switch days, you can come Friday instead of Thursday.”
1400 Youth & Society 43(4)
Grant asked, “Is your brother here? I’ll talk to him.” When he located the brother, Grant asked, “Are you gonna be here Friday? Yeah? Could you bring your brother for something special?” Jay agreed and the two of them left. (Field note excerpt)
Grant relies on his own ties to the other members of Derrick’s family, drawing on the broader social network to achieve a goal. Here, Grant draws on the social capital present at the club via the presence of multiple family members as well as the capital he has built through his relationship with Derrick and his family. This involvement of proximal relational ties in prob- lem solving allowed for Derrick’s continued participation in this develop- mental program.
Through these activities, the staff member made a conscious, yet subtle effort to minimize relational differences. He made a strong cultural connection with these adolescents, who were generally seen as “difficult” by club staff, by using their informal, conversational vernacular, engaging in juvenile behav- iors, and allowing (even instigating) some minor roughhousing. Through this, he also ensured that these possibly exclusionary behaviors remained inclusive of all the teens in the group. He let slip, if temporarily, his authoritative role, while still modeling prosocial behaviors. He took advantage of peer and fam- ily proximity, paying attention to relational ties to increase participation. So what was the result? Grant took the time to develop a connection. This took patience and effort. At an appropriate time though, he transferred the informal exchange to the developmental text, or program.
Grant handed out a worksheet that was titled, “Values and Behavior Game.” There was a hypothetical scenario that the group had to solve with the card that they drew from a deck. The situation involved a boy who had the choice of borrowing 20 dollars from his family, who prob- ably wouldn’t miss it, to lend to a boy who was trying to get his mother a sweater for her birthday. He was mowing lawns and could return the money shortly. Grant read the scenario out loud. Derrick drew a card that said ‘Dependability’ and another that said ‘Patience.’ He said, “For dependability, I would probably give him the money, but maybe with patience, I would wait to see if he got the money.” Grant said, “You just said you was gonna give him the money.” Derrick replied, “I prob- ably would.” Marcus pulled “Generosity” and “Courage.” He said, “I don’t know about that, but I would help him borrow the money to get his mom the sweater.” (Field note excerpt)
Jones and Deutsch 1401
Afterward, they had a discussion to process the lesson on how values influ- ence behavior. Grant had them write what they learned in their journals, which he then signed. Grant “cashed in” the social capital he had gained by his care- ful cultivation of relationships to engage the boys in this activity. This pro- gram is designed to promote prosocial development among boys, and Grant’s relational work ensures that the boys get the full “dosage” of the program by keeping them engaged in the curriculum as well as involving them in prosocial interactions.
Prior work has shown that adult staff are often key to the success of formal programs (DuBois & Karcher, 2005; Hirsch, 2005; Rhodes, 2004). Staff’s ability to draw on relational strategies to nurture their relationships with youth may help them create positive relational climates in which such psychoeduca- tional programs can succeed. This is especially notable in the context of a program such as Grant’s group, which is aimed at young males who have a history of behavioral infractions or difficulties. Grant’s ability to draw on relational strategies to create a clime that engages these youth could serve as a model for other adults working with teens, whose participation in such pro- grams can be difficult to sustain.
Discussion We did not embark on this project intending to explore relational strategies. Through the research process however, these strategies appeared repeatedly and became a convincing theme. Relational strategies refer to instances when an adult invests time in building a relationship with a youth and then uses that bond for promoting engagement in activities and support for the devel- opment of competencies through program participation and role modeling. The strategies refer to the specific actions staff take to build relationships, and the relationships then serve as the foundation for youth engagement and development.
We suggest that the relational strategies we observed contribute to a rela- tional pedagogy in this after-school setting; the collective efforts of staff con- tribute to a culture of relation that engages youth and may promote resilience and positive outcomes. At the Midtown Club we observed a relational peda- gogy which represents the purposeful cultivation of connections with youth for a twofold benefit: (a) the transference of that engagement to specific programs aimed at promoting positive development and youth competen- cies and (b) involvement in interactions that model and promote proso- cial behavior and provide supportive social capital. Relational strategies may
1402 Youth & Society 43(4)
therefore transfer to youth outcomes through two mechanisms—First, through increased engagement of youth in the setting. In other words, because of the positive relational climate, youth are open to “soaking up” the lessons and messages imparted by various club programs; Second, through a process of social learning, whereby youth learn to enact prosocial behavior, which is modeled by the adult staff and older youth (Bandura, 1977). Indeed, the rela- tional nature of the strategies we observed is well aligned with the goals of positive youth development. PYD constructs such as connection, caring, and character (Lerner, Almerigi, et al., 2005; Lerner, Lerner, et al., 2005) empha- size youths’ interpersonal competencies. Thus, a relational pedagogy appears well suited to promoting such outcomes.
Further research is needed to test our hypotheses and examine whether and how relational strategies lead to positive developmental outcomes for youth. Yet our results suggest that the cumulative effect of the adult–youth relation- ships built in these settings is a community space that youth experience as caring and supportive. The interview data reveal high levels of perceived care, an instrumental variable in youth experience (Noddings, 2005). The supportive relationships enable after-school school settings to move beyond safe spaces, to become developmental spaces that may promote prosocial norms and the developmental needs of youth.
The black box in the NRC/IOM report (2002) describes an unknown where youth go in and “good things” happen. Our findings suggest that one of those “good things” is the relational space between adult staff and youth. Specifically, the strategies employed by staff both model positive relational interactions and facilitate the development of adult–youth relationships that promote and support adolescent development. Such strategies may be informative to prac- titioners seeking to create communities in which relationships between teens and adults play a key role.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Notes
1. Please contact first author for full interview protocol. 2. For more information about Boys & Girls Clubs national programs and curricula,
see www.bgca.org/whatwedo/Pages/WhatWeDo.aspx
Jones and Deutsch 1403
References
Aitken, V., Fraser, D., & Price, G. (2007). Negotiating the spaces: Relational pedagogy and power in drama teaching. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(14). Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://www.ijea.org/v8n14/index.html
Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Ferrari, T. M. (2003). Participation in Boys and Girls Clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), 39-53.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., et al.
(2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bingham, C. (2004). Let’s treat authority relationally. In A. Sidorkin & C. Bingham (Eds.), No education without relation (pp. 23-38). New York: Peter Lang.
Brunie, A. (2009). Meaningful distinctions within a concept: Relational, collective, and generalized social capital. Social Science Research, 38, 251-265.
Bottrell, D. (2009). Dealing with disadvantage: Resilience and the social capital of young people’s networks. Youth & Society, 40, 476-501.
De Groot, E. V. (2002). Learning through interviewing: Students and teachers talk about learning and schooling. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 41-52.
Deutsch, N. L. (2005). “I like to treat others as others would treat me”: The development of prosocial selves in an urban youth organization. In D. B. Fink & G. G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for youth development: Doing the right thing, ethical develop- ment across diverse environments (pp. 89-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deutsch, N. L. (2007). From island to archipelago: Narratives of relational identity in an urban youth organization. In R. Josselsen, A. Lieblich, & D. McAdams (Eds.), The meaning of others: Narrative studies of relationships (pp. 75-92). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Deutsch, N. L. (2008). Pride in the projects: Teens building identities in urban contexts. New York: New York University Press.
Deutsch, N. L., & Hirsch, B. (2002). A place to call home: Youth organizations in the lives of inner city adolescents. In T. Brinthaupt & R. Lipka (Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and Interventions (pp. 293-320). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Deutsch, N. L., & Jones, J. N. (2008). “Show me an ounce of respect”: Respect and authority in adult–youth relationships in after school programs. Journal of Ado- lescent Research, 23, 667-688.
Dubois, D. L., Doolittle, F., Yates, B. T., Silverthorn, N., & Tebes, J. K. (2006). Research methodology and youth mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 647-655.
1404 Youth & Society 43(4)
DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Fredriksen, K., & Rhodes, J. (2004). The role of teacher–student relationships in the lives of students. In G. Noam & N. Fiore (Eds.), New directions for youth development: The transforming power of adult–youth relationships (pp. 45-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 647-673.
Hamilton, S. F., Hamilton, M. A., Hirsch, B. J., Hughes, J., King, J., & Maton, K. (2006). Community contexts for mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 727-746.
Hefflin, B. R. (2002). Learning to develop culturally relevant pedagogy: A lesson about cornrowed lives. Urban Review, 34, 231-250.
Hilfinger Messias, D. K., Fore, E. M., McLoughlin, K., & Parra-Medina, D. (2005). Adult roles in community-based youth empowerment programs: Implications for best practices. Family and Community Health, 28, 320-337.
Hirsch, B. (2005). A place to call home: Community-based after-school programs for urban youth. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2005). Developing social capital through participation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 41-55.
Jones, K. R., & Perkins, D. F. (2006). Youth and adult perceptions of their relation- ships within community-based youth programs. Youth & Society, 38, 90-109.
Kelly, D. C. (2009). In preparation for adulthood: Exploring civic participation and social trust among young minorities. Youth & Society, 40, 526-540.
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170-183.
Larson, R. W., & Walker, K. C. (2006). Learning about the “real world” in an urban arts youth program. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 244-268.
Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive youth development a view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.
Jones and Deutsch 1405
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). An ecological analysis of after-school program participation and the development of academic performance and attribu- tions for disadvantaged children. Child Development, 76, 811-825.
Mahoney, J. L., Eccles, J. S., & Larson, R. W. (2004). Processes of adjustment in organized out-of-school activities: Opportunities and risks. In G. G. Noam (Ed.), After-school worlds: Creating a new social space for development and learning (New Directions for Youth Development, Vol. 101, pp. 115-144). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mandell, N. (1988). The least-adult role in studying children. Journal of Contempo- rary Ethnography, 16, 433-467.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, M. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.
Merryfield, M. H. (2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 429-443.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, J. (1997). The interdependence of interpretive ethnographic and quantitative psychology methodologies in cultural psychology. Ethos, 25, 164-176.
National Clearinghouse on Families & Youth. (2009). Positive youth development. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from www.ncfy.com/publications/ydfactsh.htm
National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development (J. Eccles & J. A. Gootman, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Noam, G., & Fiore, N. (2004). Relationships across multiple settings: An overview. In G. Noam & N. Fiore (Eds.), New directions for youth development: The trans- forming power of adult–youth relationships (pp. 1-16). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Noam, G. G., & Tillinger, J. R. (2004). After-school as intermediary space: Theory and typology of partnerships. In G. G. Noam (Ed.), After-school worlds: Creat- ing a new social space for development and learning (New Directions for Youth Development, Vol. 101, pp. 75-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21(8), 5-14.
1406 Youth & Society 43(4)
Pace, J. L. (2003). Revisiting classroom authority: Theory and ideology meet practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 1559-1585.
Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., Villarruel, F. A., Carlton-Hug, A., Stone, M. R., & Keith, J. G. (2007). Participation in structured youth programs: Why ethnic minority urban youth choose to participate, or not participate. Youth & Society, 38, 420-442.
Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T. E., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 34, 691-707.
Rhodes, J. E. (2004). The critical ingredient: Caring youth–staff relationships in after- school settings. In G. G. Noam (Ed.), After-school worlds: Creating a new social space for development and learning (New Directions for Youth Development, Vol. 101, pp. 145-161). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Riggs, N. R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2004). After-school youth development programs: A developmental-ecological model of current research. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 7, 177-190.
Seidman, E., Tseng, V., & Weisner, T. S. (2006). Social setting theory and measure- ment. Available from http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org
Spencer, R. (2006). Understanding the mentoring process between adolescents and adults. Youth & Society, 37, 287-315.
Stack, C. B. (1996). Call to home: African Americans reclaim the rural south. New York: Basic Books/HarperCollins.
Stein, C. H., & Mankowski, E. S. (2004). Asking, witnessing, interpreting, knowing: Conducting qualitative research in community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 21-36.
Stewart, E. (2000). Thinking through others: Qualitative research and community psychology. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psy- chology (pp. 725-736). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Way, N. (2005). Striving for engagement: Reflections of a qualitative researcher.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 531-537.
Bios
Jeffrey N. Jones is assistant professor in the College of Education and Human Development at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. His research focuses on school and community-based interventions that promote academic and civic engagement.
Nancy L. Deutsch is assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, Charlottesville. Her research focuses on the socioecological contexts of adolescent development, particularly on issues of identity, gender, race, and class.
,
Youth Organizing as a Developmental Context for African American and Latino Adolescents
Ben Kirshner1 and Shawn Ginwright2
1University of Colorado at Boulder and 2San Francisco State University
ABSTRACT—Research on adolescence has begun to recog-
nize the centrality of ecological context in human devel-
opment. Ecological approaches, however, need to pay
greater attention to the political context of young people’s
lives, both in terms of how youth interpret their sociopolit-
ical world and how they participate in changing it.
Research on youth organizing among African American
and Latino youth offers insights about these dimensions of
sociopolitical development. Youth organizing enables
young people growing up in difficult circumstances to
identify the social origins of problems and take action to
address those problems. Emerging research suggests that
youth organizing has the potential to contribute to youth
development, community development, and broader
social movements. Youth organizing challenges social con-
structions of adolescents as apathetic or self-involved and
offers an alternative to deficit-based orientations toward
youth of color.
KEYWORDS—youth organizing; civic engagement; race and
ethnicity; ecological context; youth programs; activism
Research on adolescence has made progress by recognizing the
centrality of ecological context and diversity in human develop-
ment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner & Steinberg, 2005;
Rogoff, 2003). Ecological approaches strive to avoid deficit-based
assumptions about youth from nondominant cultural groups and
have begun to examine how developmental pathways for youth of
color are influenced by social stratification and oppression
(Garcı́a Coll et al., 1996; Lee, Spencer, & Harpalani, 2003).
We argue, however, that developmental scientists have not
paid sufficient attention to the political context of development
for African American and Latino adolescents. By political con-
text, we refer to ways that young people experience policies in
their schools and communities and how they participate in solv-
ing problems as political actors (Youniss & Hart, 2005). To
understand more about this sociopolitical domain, we examine
emerging research about youth organizing among youth of color.
Organizing enables young people growing up in working-class
and poor communities to identify the social origins of problems
and take action to address those problems (Warren, Mira, &
Nikundiwe, 2008; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Youth organizing
offers an alternative to deficit-based perspectives toward youth
of color (Ginwright, 2010). In this article, after explaining our
theoretical framework, we critically assess the existing literature
to articulate what is known and not known about individual,
community, and societal impacts of youth organizing. We con-
clude with suggestions for future research directions.
YOUTH ORGANIZING: WHAT IS IT?
Youth organizing is a form of civic engagement in which young
people identify common interests, mobilize their peers, and work
collectively to address quality-of-life and human rights issues in
their schools and communities. Contemporary youth organizing
has its historical roots in the Civil Rights Movement, when Afri-
can American college students organized lunch-counter sit-ins
and Mexican American high schoolers organized walkouts in Los
Angeles (Carson, 1981; Rosales, 1997). Youth organizing gained
renewed momentum in the 1990s. This reflected a broader socie-
tal push for greater youth community engagement (Youniss et al.,
2002) but was fueled in particular by dissatisfaction in communi-
ties of color with quality-of-life issues such as safety, education,
and policing (James & McGillicuddy, 2001). Today organizing
groups, working with low-income youth of color and other mar-
ginalized groups, address a range of issues. A report by the
Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing identified 160
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ben Kirshner, School of Education, University of Colorado, PO Box 249, Boulder, CO 80309; e-mail: [email protected].
© 2012 The Authors
Child Development Perspectives© 2012 The Society for Research in Child Development
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00243.x
Volume 6, Number 3, 2012, Pages 288–294
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
groups primarily focused on education reform, followed by racial
justice, environmental justice, the economy, juvenile justice,
immigration rights, health, and issues related to girls and young
women (Torres-Fleming, Valdes, & Pillai, 2010). Groups tend to
work with adolescents between the ages of 14 and 20; they typi-
cally include youth of a range of ages and grade levels (Kirshner,
2008). Although some organizations may recruit college students
as staff or support, the target population of organizing groups is
typically high school age.
Youth organizing represents one type of civic engagement
among a constellation of civic opportunities, such as community
service or participation on youth councils (Pancer, Pratt, Huns-
berger, & Alisat, 2007). Youth organizing groups can be charac-
terized by three shared features. First, their campaigns are
guided by social justice values aimed at developing power to
change systems, institutions, or policies (Larson & Hansen,
2005; Warren et al., 2008). This is distinct from versions of
community service that engage youth in charity (Countryman &
Sullivan, 1993). Second, organizing groups are often led by
young people who focus on youth’s concerns and mobilize young
people as agents of change (Delgado & Staples, 2007; Ginwright
& James, 2002). Third, groups are often formed on the basis of
shared social identities linked to experiences of discrimination
or marginalization (HoSang, 2006).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Youth organizing groups pursue goals at multiple levels: promot-
ing individual members’ civic and personal development, build-
ing social and political capital in local communities, and
strengthening connections to broader social justice movements.
To add to the complexity, these levels are interconnected: Per-
sonal feelings of efficacy and engagement, for example, are
likely to increase when one participates in a broader social
movement, such as occurred among Freedom Riders in the Civil
Rights Movement (McAdam, 1988) We propose, therefore, that
research about the impacts of youth organizing should attend to
three interrelated levels of change: individual, community, and
society. This effort to conceptualize multiple levels of change is
consistent with interdisciplinary scholarship on youth organizing
(Christens & Dolan, 2011; Oakes & Rogers, 2006).
To conceptualize how youth organizing contributes to individ-
ual development, we draw on political social identity theory,
which asserts that a sense of collective identity is necessary for
group members to engage in collective action (Sturmer & Simon,
2009). The extent to which individuals see themselves as group
members depends on a group’s history, social experiences, and
relative dominance in society (Sanchez-Jankowski, 2002). By
participating in social action groups, youth learn to address
community and social problems that they view as unfair. These
civic activities might include protests, hunger strikes, and civil
disobedience (Kennelly, 2009). Westheimer and Kahne (2004)
describe this form of civic engagement as “the justice-oriented
citizen who emphasizes collective work towards community bet-
terment while maintaining a more critical stance on social, polit-
ical, and economic issues” (p. 21). It has been well documented
that urban youth of color are motivated to engage in these forms
of civic activism (Cohen et al., 2006; Ginwright, 2007; Marcelo
Barrios, Hugo Lopez, & Hoban Kirby, 2007).
With respect to community development, which refers to the
process of strengthening social capital through organizing, we
draw on Putnam’s (1993) definition of social capital as “features
of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (p.
36). Youth organizing contributes to political networks and
norms that serve as social resources for community improvement
(Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999). This view of social capital
acknowledges structural constraints in communities, and views
youth as active participants facilitating institutional change
through strong social networks.
Concerning societal development, which refers to those fea-
tures of civic engagement that contribute to a vibrant democ-
racy, we propose that youth organizing supports the
development of a healthy and robust democracy when young
people, particularly those who are too often disengaged from pol-
itics, become engaged in the democratic process and various
forms of collective action (Carson, 1981). Of the three levels of
change, this one is the most challenging to study—but we
include it because it captures an important element of the long-
term social movement goals of youth organizing.
EMERGING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF
YOUTH ORGANIZING
Emerging research about youth organizing in the United States
is often published in foundation reports, nonrefereed articles,
and invited book chapters rather than in refereed journals. For
example, in winter 2011, we searched three social sciences da-
tabases (ERIC, PsychInfo, and Social Sciences Full Text) using
two search terms, “youth organizing” and “youth activism,”
bounded between 1995 and 2011. These searches identified
nine peer-reviewed studies. Ethnographic and case-study
accounts were common because youth activism is an emerging
domain of research, in which open-ended, exploratory inquiry is
appropriate (Larson & Hansen, 2005). Because there are a rela-
tively small number of peer-reviewed studies, for this article we
also report findings from books, book chapters, white papers,
and evaluation reports. The majority of studies we found focused
on individual development, which explains why that section is
the most extensive of the three.
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT
Civic Development
Studies of youth organizing—and closely related activities that
emphasize political empowerment and participatory action
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 3, 2012, Pages 288–294
Youth Organizing 289
research—provide evidence that youth participants experience
growth in three developmental domains: civic development,
psychosocial wellness, and academic engagement. Of these, evi-
dence about civic development is the strongest, with particular
emphasis on participants’ growing sense of agency and capacity
to accomplish complex political campaign goals. Larson and
Hansen (2005), for example, drawing on interviews and observa-
tions, analyzed developmental opportunities that emerged as stu-
dents worked to change policies in the Chicago Public Schools.
They found that youth organizers’ sustained efforts contributed
to the development of strategic thinking, including how to navi-
gate bureaucratic systems, frame messages with policy makers,
and respond to unexpected contingencies. Kirshner (2009) used
ethnographic methods to study African American and Asian
American youth organizers’ effort to improve student leadership
opportunities in local high schools. Kirshner reported evidence
that the campaign provided a venue for organizers to form a
civic identity defined by connection to community, group soli-
darity, and a sense of collective agency. Christens and Dolan
(2011), relying on interviews and document analysis of a cam-
paign to address root causes of youth violence, reported a pro-
cess of psychological empowerment in which youth organizers
expressed confidence that they were prepared to take on leader-
ship roles and work with a group to make community-level
change.
Multisite evaluations of two youth organizing initiatives, whose
respondents were mostly African American and Latino, also pro-
vide evidence of a link between organizing and civic develop-
ment (Gambone, Yu, Lewis-Charp, Sipe, & Lacoe, 2004;
Mediratta, Shah, & McAlister, 2008). Gambone et al. (2004)
combined surveys with qualitative observations in order to com-
pare developmental supports and opportunities for young people
in three types of youth programs: youth organizing, identity sup-
port (i.e., groups focused on psychological support for youth with
shared social identities), and traditional youth development. In
their statistical analysis, the authors found that youth organizers
reported significantly higher levels of opportunities for decision
making and leadership than did the other two groups. Also, those
involved in organizing and identity support reported significantly
higher levels of civic efficacy than did the respondents from tra-
ditional youth agencies. One limitation of this nonexperimental
study was that the samples were not random and there was some
variation in the demographic composition of each group.
Mediratta et al.’s (2008) evaluation of eight community orga-
nizing groups focused on the frequency of civic behaviors and
future intentions to be civically active. They found that youth
members reported higher civic and political engagement on sur-
veys than did a comparative national sample, as measured by
participating in protests, contacting public officials, working on
community problems, and planning to be civically engaged in
the future. These authors also reported that participants reported
high levels of future intentions to participate: More than 90%
said that they were “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to stay
involved in activism and to learn more about politics in the
future.
Although findings about civic development are suggestive,
they are based on a small number of studies that only begin to
address explanatory processes. For example, because groups are
typically based on voluntary membership, it could be that the
key drivers of development have to do with their small size, the
personalities of adult leaders, or the fact that participants self-
select into them.
Psychological Wellness
In addition to attention to civic engagement outcomes, commu-
nity psychologists argue that there is a connection between polit-
ical activism and psychological wellness (Prilleltensky, 2003;
Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2002). Psychological wellness is a
broad term that refers to a sense of hope, empowerment, and pur-
pose in life (Prilleltensky, 2008). Researchers in this tradition
theorize that building an awareness of justice and inequality,
combined with meaningful social action, contributes to greater
well-being for youth who are growing up in an oppressive social
context (Freire, 1970; Potts, 2003; Watts & Flanagan, 2007).
Empirical studies that examine the relation between sociopo-
litical action and well-being provide some evidence for this con-
nection. For example, Thomas, Davidson, and McAdoo (2008)
developed an after-school intervention for African American
girls that introduced them to Black history, notions of collectiv-
ism, critical perspectives on racism and oppression, and activism.
Their quasi-experimental evaluation found that participation in
the program contributed to higher levels of ethnic identity,
awareness of racism, and intention to engage in activism. Also,
Perez, Espinoza, Ramos, Coronado, and Cortes (2009) surveyed
undocumented Latino high school students and found that com-
munity engagement was associated with psychological resil-
iency. Qualitative research by Cammarota (2007) documents
how Latino students who engaged in social activism developed a
critical consciousness about historical inequities and the rele-
vance of academic learning to their lives. More research is
needed, however, to conceptualize and study the relation
between youth organizing and broader indices of wellness and
resiliency.
Academic Engagement
Emerging evidence shows a positive relation between activism
and academic engagement. In qualitative, peer-reviewed
research, Cammarota (2007) reports findings from a school-
based social justice education project that aimed to empower
youth to study and take action about issues affecting their lives.
Students described a shift from being alienated from school
toward seeing its relevance. For example, students reported
learning how to use academic tools—such as ethnography or
critical theory—to interpret and challenge discrimination or
inequality. Students began to see academic content as a vehicle
for them to accomplish socially relevant goals.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 3, 2012, Pages 288–294
290 Ben Kirshner and Shawn Ginwright
Mediratta et al.’s (2008) evaluation provides support for this
claim as well. Youth organizers self-reported changes in their
academic engagement, with 90% of the students indicating that
their involvement in youth organizing made them more moti-
vated to complete high school, 80% indicating that their grades
improved, and 60% indicating that they took more challenging
coursework due to their involvement in organizing. In an article
based on this evaluation, Shah (2011) reported that the post-
graduate ambitions of youth organizing participants exceeded
those reported by a national sample of Latino and African Amer-
ican youth. Similar to other findings reported above, these find-
ings are limited by their self-report nature and the prevalent
finding that young people’s academic aspirations do not always
match their behavior.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Youth organizing groups aim to improve community institutions,
such as schools, youth programs, and police departments, by
mobilizing networks of youth and forming intergenerational ties
with adult allies and policy makers. The most tangible conse-
quences of these efforts are seen in institutional changes or new
public policy. For example, a common target of organizing cam-
paigns is public education (Mediratta et al., 2008; Torres-Flem-
ing et al., 2010). Warren and Mapp (2010), for example, used
interviews and archive analysis to document the efforts of an in-
tergenerational group called Padres y Jovenes Unidos (PJU) to
improve the quality of a chronically underperforming neighbor-
hood school. The group’s efforts contributed to a number of
changes at the school, including the decision to redesign the
school around a core set of college preparatory goals. Youth par-
ticipated throughout this multiyear process by designing and
administering surveys, participating in reform committees with
teachers and community members, and holding press confer-
ences. PJU’s emphasis on academic preparation has been shared
by organizing groups across the country that want to ensure that
low-income students of color are prepared to succeed in college
(Oakes & Rogers, 2006; Speer, 2008). In Los Angeles, youth
organizing groups partnered with community organizations to
successfully persuade the school district to make college-level
classes the default expectation for all students (Renee, Welner,
& Oakes, 2009).
In addition to focusing on schools as targets of local organiz-
ing, studies have documented efforts to change juvenile justice
policies, promote interracial peace, and secure public funding
for youth opportunities (Gordon, 2010; Kwon, 2006). Christens
and Dolan (2011), for example, describe a multiyear campaign
developed by Inland Congregations United for Change in South-
ern California to change city approaches to youth-violence pre-
vention. The group argued successfully for a paid jobs program
as well as other youth programs. In this study, as well as in
Warren and Mapp’s (2010) discussed above, a distinguishing
element is the process of trust building that occurred as young
people forged intergenerational social capital with adult allies
and policy makers. Data from these campaigns suggest that
adult decision makers began to view youth in new ways and that
young people gained confidence that they were being listened
to.
IMPACT ON SOCIETY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
With some exceptions, the past two decades have seen declines
in young people’s involvement in civil society, particularly
among youth of color in urban neighborhoods (Levinson, 2007;
Lopez et al., 2006). Youth of color from low-income families,
especially those not on track to college, experience fewer oppor-
tunities for civic participation relative to their middle-class, col-
lege-bound peers (Hart & Atkins, 2002; Hyman & Levine,
2008; Kahne & Middaugh, 2009). Flanagan and Levine (2010)
attribute disparities in voting and volunteering between college-
and non-college-educated youth to “a lack of institutional oppor-
tunities for civic activities for young adults who do not attend
college” (p. 165) linked to declines in union membership. This
decline in civic engagement and corresponding gaps in electoral
power pose a serious threat to a healthy and robust democracy
(American Political Science Association, 2004).
Youth organizing, on the other hand, is a place where low-
income youth of color build skills and connect to other groups
pursuing allied causes. This form of civic engagement that aims
to build a social movement continues to be one of the most
significant features of social change and is necessary for the
flourishing of democratic institutions. One needs only to study
the 2008 presidential election, or the major political events in
Egypt and Tunisia, to understand the possibility of youth orga-
nizing for social change.
The most compelling examples of the impact of youth organiz-
ing on societal change stems from research on the Civil Rights
Movement in the United States (Carson, 1981; McAdam, 1988;
Piven & Cloward, 1979; Rosales, 1997). This research docu-
ments the activities of young civil rights activists and the ways
that their involvement contributed to awareness among the gen-
eral public of racial inequality in the South (Carson, 1981).
McAdam (1988) argues that understanding the dramatic social
changes of the 1960s and 1970s (student movements, antiwar
movements, women’s movement, Black Power, free speech)
requires a close examination of the youth organizing Freedom
Summer campaigns during 1964.
More recently, youth organizing groups have been active in
the national movement to reform immigration policies (Pallares
& Flores-González, 2010). News descriptions of undocumented
students telling their stories in community town halls, meeting
with state legislators to promote tuition equity at public universi-
ties, and traveling to Washington, DC, are evidence of a social
movement led by young people to pass the DREAM Act, which
would create a path to citizenship for youth whose families
brought them to the United States as minors (Gonzales, 2008).
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 3, 2012, Pages 288–294
Youth Organizing 291
Although the DREAM Act failed to pass the Senate in 2010,
the durability of this movement is demonstrated by a subsequent
redirection toward statewide campaigns related to immigration
policy (Dobuzinskis, 2011).
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND THEORY
According to our three-level framework, youth organizing has
the potential to contribute to individual youth development,
improved schools and community institutions, and civic renewal
in the broader society. But such claims are based on a small
base of evidence that deserves further research. In particular,
we recommend three directions for scholarship.
First, longitudinal research that examines the connection
between organizing experiences in adolescence and later civic
participation is needed. Few studies have had the resources to
follow a sample of youth organizers, particularly in comparison
to matched youth. Currently, many of the studies rely on mea-
sures of future intentions, such as intention to vote or be active
in community politics, rather than examining people’s behavior
as they transition into adulthood. Such research could describe
developmental processes of political engagement and age-
related differences more precisely.
Second, research should look not just at individual trajectories
but also at setting-level processes that promote sociopolitical
development. One of the central premises of youth organizing, for
example, is that sociopolitical empowerment involves an aware-
ness of racism, inequality, and oppression (Cammarota, 2007;
Watts et al., 2002). In this article, we described some evidence
that youth organizers develop this critical awareness but further
studies are required to describe what this process looks like in
groups and conditions under which conversations about topics
such as oppression lead to action rather than apathy. Research
about setting-level processes is important because it has the
potential to extend what the field knows about culturally respon-
sive programming for Latino and African American youth (Bandy
&Moore, 2011).
Third, we believe that research on youth organizing offers fer-
tile ground for extending and deepening ecological theories of
development, particularly as they relate to youth of color (Bron-
fenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner & Steinberg, 2004). Ecologi-
cal perspectives have strengthened the field’s understanding of
how various levels of social context shape developmental paths
for youth of color (Chao & Otsuki-Clutter, 2011; McBride
Murry, Berkel, Gaylord-Harden, Copeland-Linder, & Nation,
2011). Also, youth-development scholars have emphasized
human agency in navigating these ecological systems (Larson,
2011). What is needed is more work that integrates these two
elements of an ecological systems approach—social context and
human agency. Youth organizing, with its emphasis on channel-
ing youth’s awareness of inequality into social action, provides
an especially valuable context for studying the bidirectional
relations between ecological context and human development.
CONCLUSION
Given the vibrant role that young people played in earlier social
movements for rights and equality, and the more fragmented
state of youth-driven social movements today, attention to con-
temporary settings where youth are mobilizing is important.
Knowledge of how social settings and political context influence
development should aid in understanding the conditions under
which youth of color either connect or disconnect from political
life. Such research is important not just for promoting develop-
mental outcomes for African American and Latino youth but for
fostering broader community and societal rejuvenation.
REFERENCES
American Political Science Association. (2004). American democracy in an age of rising inequality. American Political Science Association: Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy. Retrieved April 2007 from http://www.apsanet.org/content_2471.cfm
Bandy, T., & Moore, K. A. (2011). What works for African American children and adolescents: Lessons from experimental evaluations of programs and interventions. Washington, DC: Child Trends Fact Sheet.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Hand- book of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human devel- opment (5th ed., pp. 793–828). New York: Wiley.
Cammarota, J. (2007). A social justice approach to achievement: Guid- ing latina/o students toward educational attainment with a chal- lenging, socially relevant curriculum. Equity and Excellence in Education, 40, 87–96.
Carson, C. (1981). In struggle: SNCC and the Black awakening of the 1960’s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chao, R. K., & Otsuki-Clutter, M. (2011). Racial and ethnic differences: Sociocultural and contextual explanations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 47–60. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00714
Christens, B. D., & Dolan, T. (2011). Interweaving youth development, community development, and social change through youth organiz- ing. Youth& Society, 43, 528–548. doi:10.1177/0044118X10383647
Cohen, C. J., Celestine-Michener, J., & Holmes, C. (2006, August). Nihilism and politics: The constrained life chances of African American youth. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Countryman, M., & Sullivan, L. (1993). National service: “Don’t do for, do with.” Social Policy, 24, 28–37.
Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2007). Youth-led community organizing: Theory and action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dobuzinskis, A. (2011 July 25). California Dream Act approved for illegal immigrants. Reuters. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from http:// www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/25/us-usa-california-dream-idUS TRE76O6FV20110725
Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20, 159–179. doi:10.1353/ foc.0.0043
Freire, P. (1970/2002). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Contin- uum.
Gambone, M. A., Yu, H. C., Lewis-Charp, H., Sipe, C. L., & Lacoe, J. (2004). A comparative analysis of community youth development
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 3, 2012, Pages 288–294
292 Ben Kirshner and Shawn Ginwright
strategies (CIRCLE Working Paper No. 23). Baltimore: The Cen- ter for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engage- ment.
Garcı́a Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B., et al. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Develop- ment, 67, 1891–1914.
Ginwright, S. (2007). Black youth activism and the role of critical social capital in Black community organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 403–418.
Ginwright, S. (2010). Black youth rising: Activism and radical healing in urban America. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia Uni- versity.
Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents: Social justice, organizing and youth development. New Directions in Youth Devel- opment, 96, 27–46.
Gonzales, R. G. (2008). Left out but not shut down: Political activism and the undocumented student movement. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 3, 219–239.
Gordon, H. (2010). We fight to win: Inequality and the politics of youth activism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2002). Civic competence in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 227–236.
HoSang, D. (2006). Beyond policy: Ideology, race and the reimagining of youth. In S. Ginwright, P. Noguera, & J. Cammarota (Eds.), Beyond resistance: Youth activism and community change (pp. 3– 19). New York: Routledge.
Hyman, J. B., & Levine, P. (2008). Civic engagement and the disadvan- taged: Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations (CIRCLE Working Paper No. 63). Medford, MA: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
James, T., & McGillicuddy, K. (2001). Building youth movements for community change. The Non-Profit Quarterly, 8(4), 1–3.
Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2009). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school. In J. Youniss & P. Levine (Eds.), Engaging young people in civic life (pp. 29–58). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kennelly, J. (2009). Good citizen/bad activist: The cultural role of the state in youth activism. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 31, 127–149.
Kirshner, B. (2008). Guided participation in three youth activism organi- zations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 60–101.
Kirshner, B. (2009). Power in numbers: Youth organizing as a context for exploring civic identity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 414–440.
Kwon, S. A. (2006). Youth of color organizing for juvenile justice. In S. A. Ginwright, P. Noguera, & J. Cammarota (Eds.), Beyond resis- tance: Youth activism and community change: New democratic pos- sibilities for policy and practice for America’s youth (pp. 215–228). Oxford, England: Routledge.
Larson, R. W. (2011). Positive development in a disorderly world. Jour- nal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 317–334. doi:10.1111/j.1532- 7795.2010.00707.x
Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2005). The development of strategic thinking: Learning to impact human systems in a youth activism program. Human Development, 48, 327–349.
Lee, C. D., Spencer, M. B., & Harpalani, V. (2003). “Every shut eye ain’t sleep”: Studying how people live culturally. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 6–13.
Lerner, R. M., & Steinberg, L. (2004). The scientific study of adolescent development: Past, present, and future. Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lerner, R., & Steinberg, L. (2005). The scientific study of adolescence: Past, present, and future. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Hand- book of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Levinson, M. (2007). The civic achievement gap (CIRCLE Working Paper 51, 1–11). College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Lopez, M., Levine, P., Both, D., Kiesa, A., Kirby, E., & Marcelo, K. (2006). The 2006 civic and political health of the nation: A detailed look at how youth participate in politics and communities. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Marcelo Barrios, K., Hugo Lopez, M., & Hoban Kirby, E. (2007). Civic engagement among minority youth. Medford, MA: Center for Infor- mation and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom summer. Oxford, England: Oxford Univer- sity Press.
McBride Murry, V., Berkel, C., Gaylord-Harden, N. K., Copeland-Lin- der, N., & Nation, M. (2011). Neighborhood poverty and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 114–128. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00718.x
Mediratta, K., Shah, S., & McAlister, S. (2008). Organized communities, stronger schools: A preview of research findings (pp. 1–41). Provi- dence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown Uni- versity.
Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pallares, A., & Flores-González, N. (2010). Marcha: Latino Chicago and the immigrant rights movement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M., Hunsberger, B., & Alisat, S. (2007). Community and political involvement in adolescence: What distinguishes the activists from the uninvolved? Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 741–759.
Perez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H. M., & Cortes, R. (2009). Academic resilience among undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 149–181. doi:10.1177/ 0739986309333020
Piven, F., & Cloward, R. (1979). Poor people’s movements: Why they suc- ceed, how they fail. New York: Vintage.
Potts, R. (2003). Emancipatory education versus school-based preven- tion in African American communities. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 31, 173–183.
Prilleltensky, I. (2003). Understanding, resisting, and overcoming oppression: Toward psychopolitical validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 195.
Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 36, 116–136.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and community life. The American Prospect, Spring, 35–42.
Renee, M., Welner, K. G., & Oakes, J. (2009). Social movement organizing and equity-focused educational change: Shifting the “zone of mediation.” In A. Hargreaves, A. Fullan, D. Hopkins, & A. Lieberman (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (2nd ed., pp. 153–168). New York: Springer International Handbooks.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 3, 2012, Pages 288–294
Youth Organizing 293
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosales, F. A. (1997). Chicano!: The history of the Mexican American civil rights movement. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capi- tal: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.
Sanchez-Jankowski, M. (2002). Minority youth and civic engagement: The impact of group relations. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 237–245.
Shah, S. (2011). Building transformative youth leadership: Data on the impacts of youth organizing (Occasional Papers Series No. 11). New York: Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing.
Speer, P. W. (2008). Altering patterns of relationship and participation: Youth organizing as a setting-level intervention. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Trans- forming schools and community programs (pp. 213–228). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sturmer, S., & Simon, B. (2009). Pathways to collective protest: Calcula- tion, identification, or emotion? A critical analysis of the role of group-based anger in social movement participation. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 681–705.
Thomas, O., Davidson, W., & McAdoo, H. (2008). An evaluation study of the Young Empowered Sisters (YES!) program: Promoting cul- tural assets among African American adolescent girls through a
culturally relevant school-based intervention. Journal of Black Psy- chology, 34, 281–308.
Torres-Fleming, A., Valdes, P., & Pillai, S. (2010). Youth organizing field scan. New York: Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing.
Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2010). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press.
Warren, M. R., Mira, M., & Nikundiwe, T. (2008). Youth organizing: From youth development to school reform. New Directions for Youth Development, 117, 27–42.
Watts, R., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on civic engage- ment: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779–792.
Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2002). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 185–194. doi:10.1023/A:1023091024140.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Jour- nal, 41, 237–269.
Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M. W., & Silbereisen, R. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty- first century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 121–148.
Youniss, J., & Hart, D. (2005). Intersection of social institutions with civic development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Devel- opment, 109(Fall), 73–82.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 6, Number 3, 2012, Pages 288–294
294 Ben Kirshner and Shawn Ginwright
