25 1Principles from history, community psychology and developmental psychology applied to community based programs for deinstitutionalized youth 
Home Page  

  • SciELO

  • SciELO


Análise Psicológica

 ISSN 0870-8231

     

 

Toward an understanding of youth in community governance: Policy priorities and research directions

 

Shepherd Zeldin (**)

Linda Camino(**)

Mathew Calvert (**)

 

ABSTRACT

For more than a decade, many researchers and practitioners have endorsed a “positive youth development” approach, which views adolescents as active contributors to their own development and as assets to their communities. As part of this shift, youth are increasingly being invited to engage in community governance. In youth organizations, schools, community organizations, and public policy arenas, youth are making strong contributions to advisory boards and planning councils, and are integrally involved in key day-to-day functions such as program design, budgeting, outreach, public relations, training, and evaluation.

State and local policy-makers are also beginning to endorse the engagement of youth in community governance. This policy endorsement, however, has largely occurred independent of scholarship on adolescent development. In this Social Policy Report, our aim is to help bridge this gap. We discuss the cultural context for youth engagement, theoretical rationales and innovative models, empirical evidence, and priorities for policy and research.

Why involve youth in community governance? Three main theoretical rationales have been established: Ensuring social justice and youth representation, building civil society, and promoting youth development. Moreover, across the country, innovative models demonstrate that the theory can be effectively translated into policy. Finally, a strong research base supports the practice. When youth are engaged in meaningful decision-making – in families, schools, and youth organizations – research finds clear and consistent developmental benefits for the young people. An emerging body of research shows that organizations and communities also derive benefits when youth are engaged in governance.

Several directions need to be pursued for youth engagement to exert a maximum positive impact on young people and their communities. We recommend three areas for policy development. First, public awareness of the practice needs to be better established. Societal expectations for youth remain low and negative stereotypes remain entrenched in the mass media. Second, more stable funding is needed for youth engagement. It will be especially critical to support community-based youth organizations because these places are likely to remain the primary catalysts for youth engagement in the civic life of communities. Third, it is necessary to build local capacity by supporting outreach and training through cross-sector community coalitions and independent, nonprofit intermediary organizations. These entities are best positioned to convince stakeholder groups to chart, implement, and sustain youth engagement.

It is equally important to broaden the scientific context for youth engagement in community governance. Priorities for scholars are to focus research on understanding: the organizational and community outcomes that emanate from engaging youth in governance; the competencies that youth bring to governance; and how the practice of youth engagement can be sustained by communities.

Key words: Youth governance, community participation, civil society.

 

RESUMO

Há mais de 10 anos que vários investigadores e interventores têm vindo a defender os resultados positivos de abordagens que promovem o envolvimento dos jovens, esta perspectiva vê os adolescentes como facilitadores activos do seu próprio desenvolvimento e como recursos importantes para as suas comunidades. Como parte destas mudanças os jovens têm vindo a ser cada vez mais envolvidos na governança das suas comunidades. Os jovens têm vindo a dar contributos importantes nas organizações juvenis, nas escolas, nas organizações comunitárias e na definição de políticas públicas, através da sua participação em conselhos consultivos e equipas de planeamento de intervenção e estão plenamente envolvidos nas funções/actividades inerentes ao desenvolvimento destas acções, como o desenvolvimento de designs de intervenção, orçamentos, relações públicas, formação e avaliação.

Os decisores políticos de nível local e estatal começam agora a valorizar o envolvimento dos jovens na governança das comunidades. Esta política de envolvimento dos jovens, contudo, tem ocorrido de forma independente do investimento no desenvolvimento dos adolescentes. Neste Social Policy Report, o objectivo é preencher a lacuna entre estas duas áreas. Discutimos o contexto cultural do envolvimento dos jovens, teorias e modelos inovadores, evidências empíricas e prioridades para a intervenção e pesquisa.

Porque envolver os jovens na governança das comunidades? Têm sido identificadas três fundamentações teóricas de base: Assegurara a justiça social e a representação dos jovens; construir uma sociedade civil e promover o desenvolvimento dos jovens. Contudo, de uma forma geral, modelos inovadores têm vindo a demonstrar que a teoria pode ser eficazmente transformada em política. Por outro lado, uma forte pesquisa de base serve de suporte à prática. Quando os jovens estão envolvidos em processos de tomadas de decisão importantes – nas famílias, nas escolas, e nas organizações juvenis – a pesquisa identifica evidências claras e consistentes dos benefícios para o desenvolvimento desses jovens. Um conjunto de pesquisas recentes mostram-nos, também, que organizações e comunidades retiram benefícios da participação dos jovens na sua governança. Várias acções devem ser desenvolvidas para que se retire o máximo proveito do envolvimento dos jovens para os próprios e para as comunidades. Recomendamos três áreas para o desenvolvimento dessas políticas. Primeiro, o reconhecimento público do sucesso destas práticas necessita de ser melhor divulgado. As expectativas sociais sobre os jovens continuam baixas e os estereótipos negativos continuam a ser veiculados pelos média. Segundo, são necessários apoios económicos mais estáveis para o envolvimento dos jovens. Especialmente no caso das associações juvenis que nascem nas comunidades, pois estas continuam a ser o principal catalizador para a participação dos jovens na vida cívica das comunidades. Terceiro, é necessário promover o desenvolvimento de competências locais dando suporte ao nível da formação, nos vários sectores das organizações comunitárias, coligações e associações sem fins lucraticos. Estas entidades estão melhor posicionadas para convencerem os grupos com poder de decisão no sentido de planearem, implementarem e manterem o envolvimento dos jovens. É igualmente importante expandir o contexto científico para o envolvimento dos jovens na governança comunitária. As prioridades dos académicos deverão ser a focalização da pesquisa na compreensão: dos resultados do envolvimento dos jovens na governança, quer ao nível organizacional, quer ao nível comunitário; as competências que os jovens transportam para a governança; e como é que a prática do envolvimento dos jovens pode ser sustentada/mantida pelas comunidades.

Palavras-chave: Governança dos jovens, participação comunitária, sociedade civil.

 

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text only available in PDF format.

 

REFERENCES

American Youth Policy Forum (1997). Some things do make a difference for youth: A compendium of evaluations of youth programs and practices. Washington, DC: Author.

        [ Links ]

Andersen, S. L. (1997). Service learning: A national strategy for youth development. Washington, DC: Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies, George Washington University.

Arnett, J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Bakan, D. (1971). Adolescence in America: From idea to social fact. Daedalus, 100, 979-995.

Benson, P. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bogenschneider, K. (2002). Taking family policy seriously: How policymaking affects families and how we can affect policymaking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bostrom, M. (2000). Teenhood: Understanding attitudes toward those transitioning from childhood to adulthood: A focus group analysis. In S. Bales (Ed.), Reframing youth issues (Working Papers), unpaginated. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute and Center for Communications and Community, UCLA.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Camino, L. (1995). Understanding intolerance and multiculturalism: A challenge for practitioners, but also for researchers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 155-172.

Camino, L. (1998). Building local infrastructure for youth development: The added value of capacity-building intermediary organizations. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.

Camino, L. (2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 11-20.

Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. (2002a). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engagement in the day-to-day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science, 6 (4), 212- 219.

Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. (2002b). Making the transition to community youth development: Emerging roles and competencies for organizations and youth workers. In Institute for Just Communities (Eds,), Community Youth Development Anthology (pp. 70-78). Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.

Camino, L., Zeldin, S., & Sherman, R. (2003). Youth as organizational researchers: Theory, practice, and tools. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Community Research and Action. Las Vegas, New Mexico.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). Positive youth deve-lopment in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Seattle, Washington: Social Development Research Group.

Chronicle of Philanthropy (2003, January). Special report: The young and the generous. Washington, DC: Author.

Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1992). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth. (2002). Best practices in youth philanthropy. Kansas City, MO: Author.

Coleman, J. S. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16, 32-38.

Crane, B. (2001). Revolutionizing school-based research. Forum, 43 (2), 54-55.

Cutler, D., & Frost, R. (2001). Taking the initiative: Promoting young people’s involvement in public decision-making in the U. K. London: Carnegie Young People’s Initiative (carnegie.peasy.com).

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of state-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.

Eccles, J., & Barber, B. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extra-curricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14 (1), 10-43.

Etzioni, A. (1998). The essential communitarian reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 123-141.

Finance Project (no date). Finding funding: A guide to federal sources for out-of-school time and community school initiatives. Washington, DC: Author (http://www.financeproject.org).

Fine, M. (1989). Silencing and nurturing voice in an improbable context: Urban adolescence in a public school. In H. A. Giroux, & P. L. McLaren (Eds.), Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 52, 117-142.

Flanagan, C., & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development: Implications of research for social policy and programs. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development (Social Policy Report series).

Flanagan, C., & Sherrod, L. (1998). Youth political development: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 447-450.

Forum for Youth Investment (2001). Youth acts, community impacts. Takoma Park, MD: Author.

Forum for Youth Investment (2002). State youth policy: Helping all youth to grow up fully prepared and fully engaged. Takoma Park, MD: Author.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd edition). New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Gilliam, F., & Bales, S. (2001). Strategic frame analysis: Reframing America’s youth. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development (Social Policy Report series).

Goll, R. (2003). Hampton’s experiment: Youth as the vision for community change. Madison, WI: Presentation at the annual 4-H Youth Development Conference.

Granger, R. (2003). Creating the conditions linked to positive youth development. In R. Lerner, C. Taylor, & A. von Eye (Eds.), New directions for positive youth development: Theory, research and practice. Pathways to positive youth development among diverse youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grotevant, H., & Cooper, C. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A perspective on individual differences in the development of identity and role-taking skill in adolescence. Human Development, 29, 82-100.

Hart, R., & Schwab, M. (1997). Children’s rights and the building of democracy: A dialogue on the international movement for children’s participation. Social Justice, 24 (3), 33-62.

Harvard Family Research Project (2002). Youth involvement in evaluation and research. Cambridge, MA: Author.

Hattie, H., Neill, J., & Richards, G. (1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 43-87.

Hine, T. (1999). The rise and fall of the American teenager. New York: Avon.

Hogan, K. (2002). Pitfalls of community-based learning: How power dynamics limit adolescents’ trajectories of growth and participation. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 586-624.

Hollingshead, A. (1949). Elmtown’s youth: The impact of social classes on adolescents. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Independent Sector (2002). Relationships between youth volunteerism and engagement later in life. Washington, DC: Author.

Jarrett, R. (1995). Growing up poor: The family experiences of socially mobile youth in low-income African-American neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10 (1), 111-136.

Kirshner, B., Fernandez, M., & Strobel, K. (2002). Youth community engagement: A sociocultural study of participatory action research. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children’s participation in democratic decision-making. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center.

Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 170-183.

Larson, R., Hanson, D., & Walker, K. (in press). Everybody’s gotta give: Adolescents’ development of initiative within a youth program. In J. Mahoney, J. Eccles, J., & R. Larson (Eds.), After-school activities: Contexts of development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Larson, R., Wilson, S., Brown, B., Furstenberg, F., & Verma, S. (2002). Changes in adolescents’ interpersonal experiences: Are they being prepared for adult relationships in the 21st century? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 31-69.

Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1995). Another look at high school restructuring. Issues in Restructuring Schools, No. 9. Madison, WI: Center on the Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 679-706.

Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E. M., & Anderson, P. M. (in press). Positive youth development: Thriving as a basis of personhood and civil society. Applied Developmental Science.

Light, P. (1998). Sustaining innovation. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Loader, I., Girling, E., & Sparks, R. (1998). Narratives of decline: Youth, disorder and community in English Middletown. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 388-403.

Lutton, L. (2002). Youth media crank up the volume. Youth Today, 11 (1), 10-15.

Mahoney, J., & Cairnes, R. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33, 241-253.

Mann, L., Harmoni, R., & Power, C. (1989). Adolescent decision-making: the development of competence. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 265-278.

Mason, H., & Goll, R. (2000). Youth-adult review of research findings: Hampton Coalition for Youth (Appendix A). In S. Zeldin, A. McDaniel, D. Topitzes, & M. Calvert (Eds.), Youth in decision-making. Washington, DC: National 4-H Council ().

McLaughlin, M. (2000). Community counts: how youth organizations matter for youth development. Public Education Network.

McLellan, J., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 47-58.

Melchior, A. (1997). National evaluation of Learn and Serve America school and community-based programs. Interim report, April.

Millstein, S., & Halpern-Felsher, B. (2002). Judgments about risk and perceived invulnerability in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 399-422.

Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (1997). Improving health through community organization and community building. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edition, pp. 241-269). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mitra, D. (2001). Opening the floodgates: Giving youth a voice in school reform. Forum, 43, 91-94.

Modell, J., & Goodman, M. (1990). Historical perspectives. In S. S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

Newmann, F. M., & Associates (1996). Authentic achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Offer, D., & Schonert-Reichl, K. (1992). Debunking the myths of adolescent storm and stress: Findings from recent research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 1003-1014.

Olson, D., Cromwell, R., & Klein, D. (1975). Beyond family power. In R. Cromwell, & D. Olson (Eds.), Power in Families. New York: Halstead Press.

Prieto, M. (2001). Students as agents of democratic renewal in Chile. Forum, 43 (2), 87-90.

Princeton Survey Research Associates (1998). Young people’s community involvement survey: Report on the findings. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Reese, W. (1995). The origins of the American high school. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rosen, M. (2003). Personal communication.

Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 423-459.

Rutter, M., Maugham, B., Mortimer, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sabo, K. (in press). Young people’s involvement in evaluating the programs that serve them: Overview of contexts, strategies and outcomes. New Directions in Evaluation.

Scales, P., Benson, P., Roehlkepartain, E. & coll. (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.

Schlegel, A., & Barry, H., III. (1991). Adolescence: An anthropological inquiry. New York: Free Press.

Sherman, R. (2002). Building young people’s public lives: One foundation’s strategy. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 65-82.

Sherrod, L., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship and opportunities for youth development: The what, when, why, where, and who of citizenship development. Applied Development Science, 6, 264-272.

Sly, D. F., Heald, G. R., & Ray, S. (2001). The Florida “truth” anti-tobacco media evaluation: design, first year results, and implications for planning future state media evaluations. Tobacco Control, 10, 3-5.

Smetana, J. (1988). Concepts of self and social convention: Adolescents’ and parents’ reasoning about hypothetical and actual family conflicts. In M. Gunnar (Ed.), 21st Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Steinberg, L. (1991). The logic of adolescence. In P. Edelman, & J. Ladner (Eds.), J. Adolescence & Poverty: Challenge for the 1990s. Washington, DC: Center for National Policy Press.

Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 (1), 1-19.

Students Working Against Tobacco (n.d.). The message of SWAT. Retrieved March 6, 2003, from

Sullivan, L. (2000). An emerging model for working with youth. College Park, MD: LISTEN.

Torney-Purta, J. (1990). Youth in relation to social institutions. In S. Feldman, & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Torney-Purta, J., Damon, W., Casey-Cannon, S., Gardner, J., Gonzalez, R., Moore, M., & Wong, C. (2000). Creating citizenship: Youth development for free and democratic society: Conference consensus document. Palo Alto: Stanford Center on Adolescence.

UNICEF (2002). United Nations special session on children follow-up: National plans of action. Retrieved March 13, 2003 from

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

White, J., & Wyn, J. (1998). Youth agency and social context. Journal of Sociology, 34, 314-327.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Social Development, 5, 85-99.

Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., & coll. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12 (1), 121-148.

Youth Activism Project (2003). Success stories. Retrieved March 13, 2003 from Zeldin, S. (2000). Integrating research and practice to understand and strengthen communities for adolescent development. Applied Developmental Science, 4 (1), 2-11.

Zeldin, S. (2002a). Sense of community and positive beliefs toward adolescents and youth policy in urban neighborhoods and small cities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31 (5), 331-342.

Zeldin, S. (2002b). Engaging youth in policy-making roles: The effects on adults and organizational functioning. In Institute for Just Communities (Eds.), Community Youth Development Anthology (pp. 47-54). Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.

Zeldin, S. (2003). Mapping the developmental processes of youth engaged in organizational governance: Youth as agents of their own development. Under review.

Zeldin, S., & Topitzes, D. (2002). Neighborhood experiences, community connection, and positive beliefs about adolescents among urban adults and youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 647-670.

Zeldin, S., Camino, L., & Calvert, M. (2002). Youth development: A policy framework for program and funding priorities in Greater Milwaukee. Milwaukee: United Way of Greater Milwaukee.

Zeldin, S., Camino, L., Calvert, M., & Ivey, D. (2002). Youth-adult partnerships & positive youth development: Some lessons learned from research and practice in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension.

Zeldin, S., McDaniel, A. K., Topitzes, D., & Calvert, M. (2000). Youth in Decision-Making: A study on the impacts of youth on adults and organizations. Chevy Chase, MD: National 4-H Council (www.atthetable.org).

 

(**) University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

 

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License