A R T I C L E
FROM PROGRAM PARTICIPANT TO ENGAGED CITIZEN: A DEVELOPMENTAL JOURNEY Lynne Borden and Joyce Serido University of Arizona
American youth who participate in both school-based and communitybased programs during high school remain more civically engaged than their contemporaries throughout adulthood. However, few studies have examined the developmental processes through which participation in a youth directed program promotes civic responsibility. In this qualitative study, 23 males and 9 females took part in one of five focus groups to talk about their experiences as members of a youth empowerment center in the southwest. The results reveal a three-phased process model of development from program participant to civically engaged youth. Each of the three phases, participation, connection and expansion, is explained using the words and examples provided by the youth. Implications for application C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and future research are discussed.
In a democracy, citizenship is as important to adult functioning as working or raising a family (Sherrod, 2005). Despite the need for actively involved citizenry to ensure that communities are both stable and healthy, current research suggests that there is decreasing civic engagement among today’s youth (Ginwright & James, 2002; Mahoney, Eccles, Larson, & Lord, 2005; Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002). There are long-term studies of Americans that show that youth who participate in programs (e.g., both school-based and community-based programs) during high school remain more civically engaged than their contemporaries, even decades later (Verba,
Authors are listed alphabetically as both have made equal contributions to this article. A special thank you to all the young people and adults for their support on this project. Without their help this project would have not been possible. A special thank you to Margaret Stone, Steve Marks, Anne Fisher, Arlie Roth, and Tara Luckau for their tireless efforts in collecting, transcribing, and coding data. Correspondence to: Lynne M. Borden, Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, P.O. Box 210078, Tucson, Arizona 85712-0078. E-mail:
[email protected] JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 37, No. 4, 423–438 (2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). & 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20293
424
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
Scholzman, & Brady, 1995; Youniss, McClellan, & Yates, 1997). However, much less is known about the developmental processes that promote or enhance the civic engagement of young people, particularly among disenfranchised youth. In this article, we present findings from a qualitative study designed to examine the process through which participation in a youth directed community program promotes civic responsibility and contributes to the positive development of disadvantaged youth. Benefits of Participation in Youth Programs There is growing evidence that youth programs promote positive youth development (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Gambone, Klem, and Connell (2002) in their model, A Community Action Framework for Youth Development, suggest that youth programs prepare young people for a successful transition to young adulthood. Through their participation in youth programs, young people have access to opportunities to learn and build important skills. Studies find that, compared with family and community factors, time spent in youth programs is the most consistent predictor of youth thriving (Borden et al., 2006). Participation in youth programs offers young people the opportunity to acquire the following assets: positive identity; respect; decision-making skills; positive values; family and community support; meaningful roles and empowerment; new physical, social, and intellectual skills; opportunities to develop and express passion and creativity; and constructive use of time (Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Hart, 1992; Perkins, Borden, & Villarruel, 2001; Scales & Leffert, 1999; Earls & Carlson, 2002). Youth program participation has also been found to be negatively associated with substance use, antisocial behavior and delinquency, school misconduct and failure, and early unprotected sex (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Perkins & Borden, 2003). Program Participation and Disenfranchised Youth Participation in youth programs may be particularly important for disadvantaged youth who lack supportive adult relationships (Scales et al., 2001). For this article, we define disadvantaged youth as adolescents and young adults (ages 14–25) with limited access to the opportunities and experiences that promote positive developmental outcomes (e.g., supportive family, involvement in school activities, neighborhood quality). Research finds that socially and economically disadvantaged youth are less emotionally well adjusted (Hill & Sandfort, 1995; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994) and less financially successful in adulthood (Amato & Booth, 1997). If participation in youth programs promotes a variety of positive developmental outcomes (e.g., graduating from high school, leadership skills, organizational skills) as well as increased resiliency and improved protective factors (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 1999; Redd, Cochran, Hair, & Moore, 2002; Villarruel, Perkins, Borden, & Keith, 2003), then program opportunities for disadvantaged youth may represent an investment in the well-being of youth and the communities in which they live. In the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine report, Eccles and Gootman (2002) asserted that programs should be made available to all youth and that, ‘‘particular attention should be placed on programs for disadvantaged and underserved youth [italics added]’’ (p. 11) as these experiences may provide a positive developmental context that is not unlike the contexts of schools, families, and peers. Participation in community-based youth programs also assists youth in overcoming adversity, thereby increasing their willingness to engage in efforts to help others, enhancing leadership Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
From Program Participant to Engaged Citizen
425
qualities, increasing their efforts to maintain good physical health, and expanding their involvement in political and social activities in young adulthood (Holland & Andre, 1987; Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000; Scales & Leffert, 1999; Quinn, 1995). These programs often provide young people a first opportunity for meaningful connection to their communities (Zeldin, 2000) and to engage in civic actions/ education (Camino & Zeldin, 2002; Nicholson, Collins, & Homer, 2004). The Process of Successful Transitions through Program Participation Despite our understanding of the importance of youth participation for positive development, much less is known about the processes through which program participation promotes positive outcomes and, thus, facilitates successful transitions to adulthood (Benson, 2003). Lerner and colleagues (Lerner et al., 2005) posit that positive outcomes for youth emerge through participation in programs that provide skill building and other meaningful opportunities in relationship with at least one committed adult. Participation in youth programs offers an important context for youth to understand who they are in relation to other people across varied settings. As active agents in their own growth, young people drive their own development (Larson, 2006; Larson & Walker, 2005). Thus, program participation may be the starting point towards positive development. Yet, how does program participation over time drive youth to contribute positively to self, family, and community? A Theoretical Foundation of Civic Engagement and Positive Development One way to conceptualize youth engagement in community programs as promoting civic responsibility is to examine civic engagement in adulthood as a sociopolitical development process. Watts, Williams, and Jagers (2003) offer that sociopolitical development (SPD) emphasizes an understanding of the cultural and political forces that shape one’s status in society. We use it to describe a process of growth in a person’s knowledge, analytical skills, emotional faculties and capacity for action in political and social systems. SPD is not limited to resisting oppression in the interest of justice, however; the capacity to envision and help create a just society is an essential part of the process as well. (pg. 185) When young people participate in community programs that have an intentional focus on civic engagement, they have the opportunity to engage in a process of sociopolitical development. Through their involvement in the day-to-day operations and decisions of their program, young people identify issues that are meaningful to them and become active in addressing these issues. This interactive process challenges the thinking and perceptions of young people, often leading them to more active participation in the program. Watts et al. (2003) describe an activist as ‘‘a person who acts strategically with others, on the basis of shared values, to create a more just society’’ (p. 186). It is this active engagement to improve their own program that often propels young people to look beyond that program into the surrounding community. Moreover, Watts and Flanagan (2007) extend the SPD theory in regards to youth activism. They note that ‘‘youth sociopolitical development (YSD) is a product of both liberation and developmental psychology’’ (Watts & Flanagan, p. 784). The integration of liberation and developmental psychology provides a context that moves the field of Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
426
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
youth development from a focus only on the individual to collective experience of the whole (Watts & Flanagan). Civic engagement can then be understood as a developmental process of interaction between youth self-interest and the socioeconomic, political and cultural systems that determine their experiences. These experiences then build a foundational knowledge from which young people respond to the larger community through civic/societal involvement. We posit that community programs provide a unique training ground to simultaneously promote individual development and social responsibility. Community programs encourage youth to explore their own interests, try out new ideas, and discover their unique talents and perspectives within a safe and open setting. As they develop a strong personal identity, young people acquire the self-confidence to interact with others, to listen to differing opinions, and to express their own. Within the context of the community program, youth learn how to interact with diverse peers and adults, balancing personal self-interest with the needs of the community. Through this experience, youth feel secure enough to explore their place in the larger community. The Present Study We conducted a qualitative study to explore how the experiences of disadvantaged youth who participate in a community program contribute to their personal development and their sense of social responsibility. We were particularly interested in understanding the youths’ perspective on these important topics. To gather our data, we conducted focus groups with older youth who were either current or former members of a community youth program. We chose to conduct focus groups to tap into both the individual perspectives of the participants as well as the social interactional dynamics among the participants (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005). The result is a process model of change describing how youth develop a sense of social responsibility through participation in youth-based community programs. METHOD Participants The participants are affiliated with a youth empowerment center in the southwest that brings youth together by encouraging personal expression through the arts, music, dance, and community involvement. Over 15,000 young people between the ages of 13–21 each year attend concerts, forums, and performances. The center offers afterschool youth enrichment activities (e.g., dance classes, art classes, community volunteer support) with about 400 young people participating on a regular basis (e.g., weekly). In addition, the center provides drop-in services (e.g., crisis intervention assistance, initial case management, food, and clothing) to approximately 2,500 youth annually. A core group of approximately 40–50 youth act as lead volunteers, who plan events, design a ‘‘zine,’’ and locate and prepare grants. The majority of the young people who participate are low income, from single parent homes, or are youth living on their own (75%). Youth served by the center include 60% females and 40% males between the ages of 12 and 25. The ethnic composition is reflective of the surrounding community: 51% of the participants are Caucasian, 45% Hispanic, 2% African American, 1% Asian, 1% Native American. The data for this study come from Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
From Program Participant to Engaged Citizen
427
32 members (23 males, 9 females), aged 16 to 23, who participated in focus group discussions. Procedure Preparing for the focus groups. Two members of the research team, including the Principal Investigator (PI), met with eight of the youth leaders and the center director to explain our research interest in understanding why youth choose to participate in community programs and why they choose to continue or discontinue their participation. The research team outlined the focus group methodology that would be used to collect the data for the study. Youth were given the opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the study, how it would be conducted, and how the data would be used. The youth leaders worked together with the research team to design the focus group questions. Recruiting participants. The research team explained the need to capture the diversity of young people who come to the center, including ethnicity, gender and age, so that we would hear different perspectives. There was no limit placed on the number of focus groups, although we requested that there be 5–7 participants in each group. The youth leaders invited approximately 50 young people to participate in this study, including the youth who helped to develop the questions, and 32 of them agreed to participate (64%). Participants included current students, graduates of area high schools and alternative high schools, as well as runaway and homeless youth. The ethnic composition of the participants was similar to the center as a whole, with the majority of the participants either Caucasian (50%) or Hispanic (43%). Given the unique population of youth participants, the Institutional Review Board provided a waiver of parental permission for this study. Participants signed consent forms before taking part in one of five locally-held focus groups. Conducting the focus groups. The PI, a faculty member at the university, facilitated the focus groups. Two members of the research team also attended the sessions. The youth leaders and the center director assigned participants to focus groups based on the preferred music genre of the participants (e.g., break dancing, punk music) to promote trust and confidence among participants and to encourage free expression of their ideas and opinions in an atmosphere of familiarity and comfort. Each session lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Before beginning a session, the facilitator informed the participants that their responses would be tape-recorded; she asked participants to verbally acknowledge that they knew they were being recorded and were giving their consent. To protect their anonymity, participants used a pseudonym during the focus group session. Method of Analysis Transcripts were analyzed using a multiple rater approach. Four research team members received copies of the transcripts. Each member was asked to individually read the transcripts first as a whole, to get an overall sense of the participants’ experiences. Then, the researchers separately highlighted key statements about personal experiences of participants and organized them into major themes to allow both meaning and structure to emerge from the data (Colaizzi, 1978). The experiences shared by the youth were simultaneously multileveled and integrated. In their Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
428
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
answers, one thought was interwoven with another. Thus, a single statement may have embodied multiple themes. The research team met and discussed the different themes. Only those themes that were clearly identified by each member of the research team were analyzed further. During the discussions, the researchers aggregated similar themes and agreed upon the wording for each theme. To ensure that the themes that emerged represented the experiences of the participants, each researcher, once again, independently reviewed the entire transcripts. (Sample results of these analyses are available upon request). The Process Model Two of the researchers then analyzed the themes that emerged during discussions and developed a process model (see Fig. 1). The model describes a potential pathway through which young people develop an awareness of social responsibility. The model consists of three phases: participation, connection, and expansion. In this section, we describe each phase of the model and, where appropriate, the steps within each phase. Phase I: Participation. During the focus groups, the majority of young people described being drawn to the center for self-gratification. Listening to music and meeting friends were most often cited as reasons for coming to the center. We labeled this step Initiate Contact. The center provided a place where young people could ‘‘hang out’’ with their friends and relax. One young woman expressed this very clearly: It started out as like a social thing, like I knew a couple local bands—I was really into them, and then I knew I could always come here and find kids that—it wasn’t a party; it was just a place to hang out. Like, all the street kids here have the same interests as me.
Participation
Initiate Contact
Maintain Contact
Connection
Expansion
Establish Relationship Develop Connection to Community Reciprocate
Figure 1. Process model achieving civic engagement through program participation. Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
From Program Participant to Engaged Citizen
429
The center provided opportunities for youth to interact with people from diverse backgrounds and age groups through a variety of activities. One young male explained: There’s so many different people that come in here, from, you know, runaways, to punk-rockers, to people of all the hip-hop, the break-dancers, so you learn different cultures, different lifestyles, different urban arts, ya know? It gives you a chance to get into all that, and expand your horizon, and get into different things. Although the musical events drew youth to the center, they stayed because they felt comfortable. We labeled this step Maintain Contact. The atmosphere in the center encouraged youth to be themselves. One young man told us: I first came here for a show, and I met [another young person]. Yeah, there’s a lot of cool kids and I like the environment down here—it’s really comfortable; I get along with everyone, for the most part. It’s a really good environment, everyone’s really cool, and, yea, the shows are pretty cheap. The center is located in the downtown area, a section of the city often considered dangerous and violent. Yet the youth spoke about the center as an oasis, a place where they felt welcomed and protected. One young man who had been coming to the center for 8 years offered some insight regarding the center as a safety net for disadvantaged youth: [Coming to the center] Um, it became a real healthy routine for me. Um, it kept me out of trouble. It was a totally fun, safe place I could go to. You know, it’s a place that my dad felt comfortable letting me go to, and I kept going. I liked it. Several participants commented that their involvement in the program changed ‘‘who they were,’’ in the sense of seeing themselves in relation to others and developing new skills (e.g., Harter, 1997). As one young woman explained: It’s helped my self-esteem a whole bunch. Before I started coming here, I was very self-conscious about what I looked like and how I was dressed, and all that kinda stuff. I started coming down here, and I realized it’s more about what’s on the inside that matters—about what you think about, about how big your heart is, about how much you love, and that’s awesome. Phase II: Connection. Through their ongoing participation, young people established a relationship with both peers and adults at the center. As one young woman explained: ‘‘There’s a nice sense of community here.’’ We labeled the first step in this phase Establish Relationship. Over time, youth developed a familiarity despite different interests and backgrounds. One young man said: I think we’ve learned to respect everybody else a little more because we all know that we all come here and so it’s a public place, so, I mean you don’t wanna disrespect a lot of people because then there’s gunna be animosity between you and you know you’re gunna see them every week because they come here and you come here. So you have to kind of respect everybody to kind of keep the cool around here. Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
430
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
One young man put it succinctly when he said, ‘‘It’s kinda like that TV show Cheers. Everybody knows your name. You can chill, kick back.’’ The ongoing interaction among youth contributed to a feeling of connection even among youth with very different views. Youth continued to come to the center because they felt they were a part of a community that cared about them and accepted them as they were. Over time, many of the youth recognized that the center provided for them and they, in turn, felt the need to ‘‘give back’’ to the center. We labeled this step Reciprocate. One young man described the process as follows: I teach class, and it’s getting bigger every week it seems. I first started helping teaching about 15 kids and for the last two months, it’s jumped up to about 30 kids, and it just keeps getting more and more, and I mean, it’s free, I mean, I do it for free. I don’t ask to get paid, I don’t want to get paid, I just come. [Name] helps out a lot, I help out a lot, and so, it’s just kind of an obligation right now to [center director], because for the longest time, we just came here to practice, so we were using this place, and we kind of feel like we need to help repay for what we did. We found it interesting to listen to youth describe the ways they contributed to the center. In many cases, youth experienced freedom and learned responsibility as they discovered ways to expand the capabilities of the center. For example, one young woman thought the center should open a cafe´ to provide vegetarian food options and to raise money to support the center. The director allocated space and explained to the young woman that it was up to her to clean out the space and find the resources to make it happen. The young woman talked about her efforts, saying: Myself and another individual went all around town looking for stuff to stock the cafe´ with—refrigerators, and other cafe´ supplies, and that kind of gave us a sense of responsibility, knowing that we were working for something that we actually cared about, which is important. Not many other places let you do that around here. Phase III: Expansion. As the youth became more invested, they began exploring the connections between the center and the larger community. We labeled this step Develop Connection to Community. The youth who regularly participated recognized that the center was an important part of the youth culture in the city. One young woman talked about the role the center plays in the lives of many disenfranchised youth, saying: Well, we have a lot of street kid drop-ins. I mean, word of mouth is really big among squatters and travelers and stuff like that. We get a lot of street kids that come to [city], and a lot of them come here first. They don’t go to other agencies, because, number one, we’re more on their level, you know? We speak the same language, whereas, when they go to [other non-profit agencies], it’s kinda intimidating, because it’s all adults in their suits, and they kinda, whether they act like they’re better than you, you still get that feeling like they think they are, whereas, here, everyone’s an equal. As youth examined the relationship between the center and the surrounding community, they began to understand the impact of that relationship on their personal Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
From Program Participant to Engaged Citizen
431
well-being. Youth recognized that they were a part of a larger community and had a stake in it. As one young woman explained: Definitely, working at [the center] has gotten me much more involved in the community because especially [the center] is funded off of city funding and grants and things that require you to be involved in the community. So, for example, a couple weeks ago there was that chance of losing all the money to the city council, and the first thing we did was attend the meeting, so it’s like we get really involved in the community because we really care about this place, and it’s something that’s important to you. So what that taught me when you care about something, get involved, and you need to go out into the community and help make things better and help fix it. Working at [center] has really taught me that the first place you start when you want something to get better is to help the community. The young people repeatedly noted that the more involved they were in the program, the more committed they became to both the center and to the surrounding community. One young woman commented: Before I came here y I’d never seen the downtown area, and coming to this program, was really, not just coming to the program, but it got us more involved in the city, and different places within the city, and it gave us more pride for where we came from, that we can come to the heart of the city and get together and hang out. From Program Participation to Engaged Citizen The young people valued their participation in the center. What began as an interest in alternative music or time spent with friends, developed into a sense of belonging to a youth community in a rich and complex sense. Their continued participation offered them a safe and supportive environment to observe how people with different values, interests, and skills formed a ‘‘community’’ and, in turn, how this community modeled ‘‘social action’’ through multiple levels of involvement. The center provided hands-on experience in advocacy, organization, and day-to-day operations. Thus, this program offered youth a venue from which to learn both what it means to be and how to become engaged citizens. The pathway for the majority of young people who participated in the focus groups followed the model, progressing from participation through connection to expansion. Addressing Problems That Arise The center is open to all youth. The downtown location of the center and the open door policy attract mainstream youth from local high schools as well as youth with gang affiliations, runaways and travelers (i.e., youth on the road living in different parts of the country at various times during the year). Given the disparate backgrounds of the youth participants, we asked if there were conflicts among youth at the center. One young man told us: Well, basically what we said before is that [the center] is kind of like—it’s a neutral zone that, everything, once you come into [the center], like you leave all your problems like at the door, basically, and you leave all your attitude at Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
432
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
the door and, like, you don’t want to bring your own, uh, stuff in here, you know? You don’t wanna cause problems, because once you cause problems in here, you know, it’s just like, it’s not good for everybody. The following brief exchange among the participants explains how interpersonal conflicts are handled: Female: [The center] has helped me learn how to deal with people that I don’t normally get along with. If I have a problem with someone, I kind of have to deal with it civilly, or else you’re not allowed to come back here. Male: No fighting Female: There’s no fighting. Well, sorta y Female: You can argue, but no physical fighting We probed further and asked how conflicts were resolved. The responses suggested that youth attempted to handle the conflicts civilly, with words rather than actions. One young woman best summarized the situation as follows: The last time we had some personal conflict with an individual, some other members of the club confronted them about it, and told them that they needed to stop or else they wouldn’t—they basically, wouldn’t be tolerated and they promptly apologized. I don’t know how sincere it was, but, they apologized and it was back to at least professional so that we could work together. Thus, the young people who spoke with us had found ways to put aside their differences, at least at the center. It is possible that youth settled their conflicts off the premises in less amicable ways or that unresolved conflicts resulted in some youth discontinuing their participation. It is also possible that because the center was an important asset for the young people, regular interaction among diverse youth, even tense interactions, cultivated positive network building behavior rather than social disconnectedness and alienation (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2005). Youth participants occasionally referred to behavioral norms and expectations of the center, and so we asked if there were clear rules that youth were expected to follow. One young man explained: Well, there’s rules, but they’re really, like, extremely reasonable, minimal rules. It’s like no fighting, no drinking, you know, be respectful, and, like, this—and if you don’t follow them, you’ll get kicked out, but just knowing that there’s this place where all you have to do is be, like, a good person, and you’re fine, like, in there, and nobody’s gonna get on you for messing up or something like that. In addition to fighting, drugs and alcohol are not allowed on the premises. Several youth participants had been ‘‘kicked out’’ for misbehavior but were allowed to return to the center for a second chance and, in some cases, third and fourth chances. Given the number and diversity of youth who attend some of the larger center events (e.g., shows and concerts), it is a small percentage of youth who have actually been asked to leave. It is possible that youth who felt uncomfortable either with the atmosphere at the center or the behavioral expectations chose not to return. Thus, although the focus Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
From Program Participant to Engaged Citizen
433
group participants represent diverse backgrounds, our model may not have captured characteristics of the young people who chose not to participate. Of particular interest were the perspectives of the young people who continued to participate in the program but did not become civically engaged. One young man stated that: I said I didn’t think I was involved really, now, but I’d have to say that even when I started coming here, I wasn’t really involved, either. I mean, I came to see the bands that I liked, which was few and far between, and I maybe talked to [program director] once in a while when I knew a band needed a place to play, and I tried to get them to play at [center], and that was about it, and that’s about all I do now, although it’s probably, like, even less than that, now. A second young man expressed a similar sentiment, stating that ‘‘I really don’t feel like I’m a part of it [center] at ally[the center] gave me the resources, and it’s not [the center’s] fault. Although the data do not permit us to test our hypothesis, we speculate that positive developmental outcomes through program participation, in this case civic engagement, are realized for youth who found a connection to the center. IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION The message from our focus group participants is strong: When offered a comfortable environment with adult leadership that promotes acceptance and encourages selfexpression and personal interests, youth outside mainstream institutions can become especially willing and committed partners in addressing community issues. In this program, the center director encourages youth to develop their own skills, through art, dance, music, or whatever interests them and then allows them to decide if, when, and how they want to participate. This approach is consistent with the youth sociopolitical development (YSD) model (Watts & Flanagan, 2007), which posits that individual development proceeds from the individual to the collective. Hart (1992) maintains that when particular venues tap into adolescents’ need for fun within a structure where decisions are youth-initiated and decision-making is shared with adults, genuine participation meets an urgent young need for mutual respect (i.e., dignity). This respectful process, guided by caring, savvy adults encourages marginalized young people to become aware of how they interact with peers and adults to work together in their community. As partners, they can change the community to better meet not only their own needs but also the needs of other adolescents. It was very clear that these young people were interested in serving other youth. But even more significant, they identified with the broader community and became engaged citizens (Scales, Benson, & Mannes, 2006). Such developmental opportunities are clearly important for the future of young people and for our communities as a whole (Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005). A civic ethic is nurtured through active involvement within the community (Flanagan, Gill, & Gallay, 2005; Hart & Rajbhandary, 2003). Flanagan (2003) notes that a young person’s experiences in community-based associations are the foundation of trusting dispositions. Further, Flanagan (2003) states that from a developmental perspective, youths’ experiences in community-based associations are the foundation, the starting point for the formation of trusting dispositions. It is in these organizations that they mix with other members of Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
434
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
the community, develop a collective identity, learn about loyalty and the reciprocity between trust and trustworthiness, transcend narrow self-interest, and appreciate how their own interests can be realized in the interest of the group. (p. 166) The unique environment of this youth empowerment center provides young people with the opportunity to build important relationships with adults and their peers. Through these relationships, young people develop important skills including job skills, increased self-management, and the ability to successfully traverse the world around them (Larson, Walker, & Pearce, 2005). Thus, early involvement in civic and political choices within their program promotes both individual competence and social trust. Opportunities for civic/community engagement offered through communitybased programs (e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs, Girls Incorporated, 4-H Youth Development) may be particularly effective in promoting civic responsibility and social awareness (Mahoney et al., 2005). First, community-based programs offer opportunities for active participation in addressing community issues that are meaningful to youth in partnership with supportive adults. This approach provides motivation and context for developing reasoning and assertiveness abilities (Larson, 2006) as well as interest in the political process, characteristics of informed and responsible citizens (Earls & Carlson, 2002; Keating & Sasse, 1996). Moreover, young people who participate in these programs have an opportunity to have their voices heard and to actively participate in building community and civil society (Zeldin, Larson, Camino, & O’Conner, 2005). Our interaction with the young people at the center demonstrates that community-based programs may be particularly advantageous for engaging disadvantaged youth who have limited access to such opportunities through traditional educational settings (Zeldin, 2004). As one young woman explained: Something that I think is important is I think that this program offers an opportunity y for kids to express themselves and/or belong in a setting that’s removed from traditional after school youth activities, and there’s an ever growing group of young children who are kind of left out of the loop. They don’t fit into the Boys Scouts, they don’t play football, they don’t do cheer squad, they’re not in church groups, um, they don’t play in the high school band. But of course, you know, that doesn’t make them any less in need of people to relate to or places to go to express themselves.
CONCLUDING REMARKS Today’s young people will soon be the civic leaders of tomorrow, being asked to make critical decisions regarding the use of valuable resources that will affect the lives of future generations. Civically engaged youth and adults contribute to the health and stability of their communities through their involvement in the political process both directly (e.g., voting, running for office) and indirectly (e.g., addressing social justice issues, volunteering in community organizations). The degree to which youth programs influence a young person’s development is dependent on the experiences provided by the program. Youth programs have the potential to promote the civic Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
From Program Participant to Engaged Citizen
435
engagement of young people by, first, providing opportunities for self-expression and self-discovery and, second, by providing opportunities for youth to become meaningfully engaged in their community. Further, understanding the process that links program participation to engaged citizen becomes even more important when we consider disenfranchised youth who often lack important social and emotional support and have limited access to opportunities to develop their skills and use them to contribute to the larger community. As one of the young adults from the center explained: One of the major benefits of a social scene like [the center] is that it, while it would be silly and utopian to assume that it doesn’t apply, the rules of other, you know, social groups doesn’t apply, there is a focus on creativity and diversity that may not exist in other places, and, uh, there are a lot of opportunities to tap into some possibly disenfranchised youth, um, they’re looking for opportunities to express themselves or learn about alternative viewpoints or simply, um, maybe belong to a group as long as you want to do, but belong to a group that doesn’t necessarily belong to a larger social scene like some of the others do. While this model offers insight into how participation in a unique youth community program engaged young people in their community, future empirical testing in different community program settings is needed.
REFERENCES Amato, P.R., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Benson, P.L. (2003). Toward asset-building communities: How does change occur? In R.M. Lerner & P.L. Benson (Eds.), Developmental assets and asset-building communities: Implications for research, policy, and practice (pp. 213–221). New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers. Borden, L.M., Perkins, D.F., Villarruel, F.A., Carlton Hug, A., Stone, M., & Keith, J.G. (2006). Challenges and opportunities to Latino youth development: Increasing meaningful participation in youth development programs. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 28, 187–208. Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. (2002). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engagement in the day-to-day lives of communities. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 213–220. Catalano, R.F., Berglund, M.L., Ryan, J.A.M., Lonczak, H.S., & Hawkins, J.D. (1999). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Washington, DC: U. S. DHHS, NICHHD. Colaizzi, P.F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R.S. Valle & M. King (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48–71). New York: Oxford University Press. Earls, F., & Carlson, M. (2002). Adolescents as collaborators: In search of well-being. In M. Tienda, W.J. Wilson (Eds.), Youth in cities: A cross-national perspective (pp. 58–83). New York: Cambridge University Press. Eccles, J.S., Barber, B.L., Stone, M.R., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865–889. Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
436
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J.A. (Eds.) (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Flanagan, C.A. (2003). Trust, identity, and civic hope. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 165–171. Flanagan, C.A., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. (2005). Social participation and social trust in adolescence: The importance of heterogeneous encounters. In A. Omoto (Ed.), Social participation in processes of community change and social action (pp. 149–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gambone, M.A., Klem, A.M., & Connell, J.P. (2002). Finding out what matters for youth: Testing key links in a community action framework for youth development. Unpublished manuscript, Philadelphia: Youth Development Strategies, Inc. and Institute for Research and Reform in Education. Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 27–46. Hart, R.A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Innocenti Essay, 4, Florence. Italy: UNICEF ICDC. Hart, R.A., & Rajbhandary, J. (2003). Using participatory methods to further the democratic goals of children’s organizations. New Directions for Evaluation 98, 61–75. Harter, S. (1997). The personal self in social context: Barriers to authenticity. In R.D. Ashmore, & L.J. Jussim (Eds.) Self and identity: Fundamental issues (pp. 81–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., & Miller, J. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64–105. Hill, M.S., & Sandfort, J.R. (1995). Effects of childhood poverty on productivity later in life: Implications for public policy. Children & Youth Services Review, 17, 91–126. Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987). Participation in extracurricular activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57, 437–466. Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulation of pedagogy, politics, inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Third edition (pp. 887–908). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Keating, D.P., & Sasse, D.K. (1996). Cognitive socialization in adolescence: Critical period for a critical habit of mind. In G.R. Adams & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Psychosocial development during adolescence (pp. 232–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Larson, R. (2006). Positive youth development, willful adolescents, and mentoring. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 677–689. Larson, R., & Walker, K. (2005). Processes of positive development: Classic theories. In P.A. Witt & L.L. Caldwell (Eds.), Recreation and youth development (pp. 131–148). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Larson, R., Walker, K., & Pearce, N. (2005). A comparison of youth-driven and adult-driven youth programs: Balancing inputs from youth and adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 57–74. Lerner, R.M., Almerigi, J.B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J.V. (2005). Positive youth development: A review of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 10–16. 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: Finding from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17–71. Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
From Program Participant to Engaged Citizen
437
Mahoney, J.L., Eccles, J.S., Larson, R., & Lord, H. (2005). Organized activities as developmental contexts for children and adolescents. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. Eccles, (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 3–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G.D. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2006). Social responsibility. In L. Sherrod, C. Flanagan, & R. Kassimir (Eds.), Youth activism: An international encyclopedia (pp. 597–599). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Nicholson, H.J., Collins, C., & Homer, H. (2004). Youth as people: The protective aspects of youth development in after-school settings. The Annals of the American Academy, 591, 55–71. Oetting, E.R., & Donnermeyer, J.F. (1998). Primary socialization theory: The etiology of drug use and deviance. Substance Use and Misuse, 33, 995–1026. Perkins, D.F., & Borden, L.M. (2003). Community youth development. In J.R. Miller, R.M. Lerner, L.B. Schiamberg, & P.M. Anderson (Eds.), Human ecology: An encyclopedia of children, families, communities, and environments (pp. 138–141). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio. Perkins, D., Borden, L.M., & Villarruel, F. (2001). Community youth development: A partnership for action. School Community Journal, 11, 39–56. Quinn, J. (1995). Positive effects of participation in youth organizations. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Psychological disturbances in young people: Challenges for prevention (pp. 274–304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Redd, Z., Cochran, S., Hair, E., & Moore, K. (2002). Academic achievement programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Scales, P.C., Benson, P., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. (2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 27–46. Scales, P.C., Benson, P., & Mannes, M. (2006). The contribution to adolescent well-being made by nonfamily adults: An examination of developmental assets as contexts and processes. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 410–413. Scales, P.C., Benson, P., Roehlkepartain, E.C., Hintz, N.R., Sullivan, T.K., & Mannes, M. (2001). The role of neighborhood and community in building developmental assets for children and youth: A national study of social norms among American adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 703–727. Scales, P.C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Sherrod, L.R. (2005). Ensuring liberty by promoting youth development. Human Development, 48, 376–381. Sherrod, L.R., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and who of citizenship development. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 264–272. Stanton-Salazar, A. & Spina, S.U. (2005). Adolescent peer networks as a context for social and emotional support. Youth & Society, 36, 379–417. Verba, S., Scholzman, L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Villarruel, F.A., Perkins, D.F., Borden, L.M., & Keith, J.G. (2003). Community youth development: Practice, policy, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Watts, R.J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779–792. Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
438
Journal of Community Psychology, May 2009
Watts, R.J., & Williams, N.C., & Jagers, R.J. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Development, 31, 185–194. Youniss, J., McClellan, J.A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientists, 40, 620–631. Zeldin, S. (2000). Integrating research and practice to understand and strengthen communities for adolescent development: An introduction to the special issue and current issues. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 2–10. Zeldin, S. (2004). Preventing youth violence through the promotion of community engagement and membership. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 623–641. Zeldin, S., Larson, R., Camino, L., & O’Conner, C. (2005). Intergenerational relationships and partnerships in community programs: Purpose, practice, and directions for research. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 1–10.
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
