Appendix 3 Features of Settings that Support Youth Development
Appendix 3 from the report: Youth Development Structured Programmes - A Review of Evidence.
Eccles and Gootman also make some important qualifications regarding their list of features that support positive youth development.1 The first is that the list is based on existing literature, which has yet to include comprehensive study of different cultures, which means that the overall list may well omit features that are important to particular cultural groups. The second is that the boundaries between these features are not as distinct as the headings would suggest. They also emphasise that these features tend, in fact, to be features of a young person's interaction with (or experience of) the setting as opposed to truly being a feature of the setting itself. That is, there is a subjective aspect to interpretation of the different features that is unique to the individual. This is important because it suggests there are not always objective standards for the features described below: what matters is how an individual young person perceives a situation to be.
Physical and Psychological Safety
The safety of young people, both physical and physiological, is a prerequisite to all aspects of positive youth development. Beyond the direct effects of harm on physical wellbeing and development, actual violence or its threat interferes with the allocation of attention to intellectual, psychological, emotional and social development.2 For young people to willingly participate in a community programme, let alone gain maximum benefit from it, the setting needs to be free from violence and unsafe health conditions, and incorporate practices that promote positive peer group interaction and reduce unsafe or confrontational peer interactions.3 4 5
Clear and Consistent Structure and Appropriate Adult Supervision
Applied research, supported by developmental theory, has clearly demonstrated that adolescents benefit from having clear rules, discipline and consistently enforced limits placed on their behaviour.6 7 "Structure is a critical feature of all settings".8
Research has also shown a link between time spent in unstructured activities and involvement in problems behaviours. Mahoney, Stattin and Magnusson found that participation in community programmes lacking structure was predictive of greater involvement in problem behaviours in the present and twenty years later.9 This finding was reinforced by the more recent work of Feinstein, Bynner and Duckworth examining the relationship between youth leisure participation and adult outcomes in the UK.10 The authors found that young people who participated in youth clubs (relatively unstructured youth-focused programmes) had worse adult outcomes for many of the measures of adult social exclusion compared with young people participating in the other forms of leisure examined. Interestingly, further examination of the cohort showed the youth club group had, at 16 years of age, personal and family characteristics associated with adult social exclusion that differentiated them from the rest of the cohort. This led the authors to conclude that these unstructured youth programmes "...may be precisely the contexts in which the most challenging and at-risk young people are choosing to engage".11
It is extremely important that a programme's structure is developmentally, ecologically and culturally appropriate. As young people mature in general, they need less external structure and control and greater opportunity to create their own structure and exercise self-control over their behaviour. Too much (or too little) adult-imposed control and young people are likely to experience poor outcomes.12 Within the context of a youth development programme, the necessary amount of structure and adult-imposed control or supervision will vary not only depending on the age of participants, but also over the course of the programme. In general, the amount of control that adults need to exercise will lessen as the course progresses and the ability of young people to exercise judgement, self control and leadership (hopefully) increases. Expectations about structure and supervision also vary between cultures and need to be taken into account.
Supportive Relationships
The nature and quality of relationship between young person and adult is one of the most often cited, and potentially powerful, variables influencing youth development, regardless of setting. Overall, where a positive relationship exists, young people feel more supported, are less depressed, more social, more resilient, and achieve more.13 14 15
There is an extensive array of research examining the critical features of positive relationships, encompassing qualities of emotional support (eg being caring, responsive, authoritative) and instrumental support (eg providing useful guidance).16 Supportive relationships provide an environment "...of reinforcement, good modelling, and constructive feedback for physical, intellectual, psychological growth".17
Within the context of youth development programmes, the relationship between a young person and non-familial adult (eg a youth worker) is of utmost importance in achieving positive outcomes for young people, as most youth workers and related research will indicate. Eccles and Gootman found that supportive relationships were a major component of most of the effective youth development programmes they reviewed,18 as did Catalano et al19 and Roth et al.20
For young people who lack positive adult relationships in their normal life, youth development programmes may provide their only access to the kinds of developmental opportunities that positive adults can provide. In their research into service (volunteering) programmes, Finlay et al found that, of the 1096 at-risk young people surveyed, 41% reported having fewer than three adults they could go to for help and 9% said they had no helpful adults at all in their lives.21
Opportunities to Belong
Having a sense of belonging and connectedness is a key element of positive youth development. Belonging is one of the cornerstones of the Circles of Courage model of youth development which has gained increasingly strong support in the youth arena.22
Community programmes can provide young people with a sense of belonging and connectedness within the programme itself, through the formation of a supportive group culture, and through course activities that link young people with the broader community. They can also provide a safe environment for young people to explore developmental issues relating to belonging and connectedness more broadly, such as cultural identity.23 Deliberate exploration of one's personal cultural and ethnic identity, and the development of knowledge of other cultures, is an important aspect of equipping young people for adulthood - as is highlighted in Eccles and Gootman's asset list set out in chapter 2, which includes bicultural competence and the ability to navigate through multiple cultural settings as key assets.
Postive Social Norms
All groups that have sustained interaction develop their own set of habits, norms and expectations that govern their behaviour. Adolescent-focused research has found that young people's perceptions of social norms have a long-lasting influence on their behaviour.24 While often discussed in terms of its perceived harmful effects, the role of peer influence in setting social norms is typically more subtle and multidimensional and more beneficial than acknowledged. A number of different studies have found that peer influence towards positive behaviour is much more common than influence towards negative or harmful behaviour.25
In the context of community programmes, the influence of group norms is extremely important. Group activities provide the opportunities for young people to form bonds with positive peer groups and adopt the group's pro-social behaviours.26 The influence of group norms within a programme can also work in a negative way. Dishion et al found that adolescents grouped together for a programme with a large portion of peers exhibiting problem behaviours often show increases in problem behaviours as a result of programme participation.27 This suggests it may be necessary, for the wellbeing of the group as a whole, to exclude some young people from programme participation.
Support for Efficacy and Mattering
It is now understood that youth development is something that young people do for themselves (with a lot of help from others), rather than something that is 'done to them'.28 For this reason, it is important that the settings young people are in provide them with opportunities to "...be efficacious and to make a difference in their social worlds..." - ie 'to matter'.29 30 31 32
Encompassed within 'efficacy and mattering' are a number of important ideas. These include:
- the importance of opportunities to make a real difference in one's own community - often talked about in literature in terms of participation and influence
- empowerment - Roth and Brooks-Gunn suggest providing an empowering atmosphere is a key element of what makes a programme a 'youth development programme' rather than merely a ‘youth programme'33
- support for developmentally-appropriate amounts of autonomy
- the opportunity to experience meaningful challenge in order to build personal efficacy.34 35 36 37
Efficacy, it seems, results not simply from turning power over to young people but from ensuring they are challenged to extend themselves in novel, creative and demanding ways.38 Experiencing efficacy, engagement and a sense of mattering is critical for growth: "it is through acting, taking on challenges, and making meaningful contributions that a person's sense of self and identity develops".39
Community programmes can, once again, provide vital opportunities to develop efficacy and a sense of mattering. Involving young people in the design and delivery of the programmes they participate in is a commonly identified means of providing participation and influencing experiences (as well as for improving programme efficacy); service activities provide opportunities for making a difference in communities; while a range of activities are designed specifically to challenge and extend young people (eg outdoor/adventure).40 41 42 In my discussions with youth workers, the importance of young people obtaining qualifications through the programmes was raised, not so much because of the opportunities those qualifications might bring but because of the sense of achievement they fostered. As is the case with the other features discussed in this section, activities need to be developmentally- and culturally-appropriate, as well as within the bounds of the ‘stretch capabilities' of the young people involved so that they don't disengage.43 44
Opportunities for Skill Building
Good programmes help young people develop good habits and a wide range of competencies and life skills.45 46 47 48 Research has linked the teaching of basic life skills with improved emotional wellbeing, better educational performance and reduced risk behaviours.49 50
It seems that programmes with positive outcomes tend to have a 'deliberate learning environment',51 52 where learning opportunities are carefully selected and structured into a programme. Eccles and Gootman cite a number of studies that have demonstrated that participation in sports does not necessarily establish the skills and habits that would seem to lead naturally from physical activity, such as ongoing exercise or healthy lifestyle habits. "The basic point", they suggest, "is that participating in an activity does not mean that adolescents are acquiring the habits of and dispositions for the activity in the future. Programs need to be explicitly designed to teach those habits as well as other critical life skills".53
Integration of Family, School and Community Efforts
Ecological models suggest youth development is facilitated best where there is meaningful communication and consistency across different environments or settings. "This communication facilitates acquiring social capital, and it increases the likelihood of adequate structure in the setting. It also adds to the fund of developmental resources that adolescents can draw on".54 Where it is lacking, there is a greater chance that young people will be confused about adult expectations, developmental opportunities will be missed, and ‘problem behaviour and values' will take root.55
Eccles and Gootman note there is little conceptual work or research into integration across community programmes but surmise, based on research in other settings, that community programmes will be more effective when they coordinate their activities with parents, schools, and communities. In their review of well-evaluated, successful youth development programmes, Catalano et al. found that combining the resources of the family, community and school was important to success for two-thirds of the programmes studied.56
Footnotes
1 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
2 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
3 HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
4 Coatsworth, J. D. and Conroy, D. E (2008), Youth sports as a component of organized after school programs, 57-74. In D. F. Perkins and S. Le Menestrel (Eds), New directions for youth development.
5 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
6 HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
7 McLaren, 2002, op cit
8 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit, p92
9 Mahoney, J., Stattin, H. and Magnusson, D (in press) cited in Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
10 Feinstein, L., Bynner, J. and Duckworth, K (2005), Leisure contexts in adolescence and their effects on adult outcomes, Wider benefits of learning response report No. 15. Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning
11 Feinstein, Bynner and Duckworth, 2005, op cit, p17
12 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
13 Cunningham et al, 2008, op cit
14 Ministry of Health (2002), New Zealand youth health status report. Wellington: MoH
15 see also Hair, E. C., Jager, J. and Garrett, S. B (2002), Helping teens develop healthy social skills and relationships: What the research shows about navigating adolescence, Child Trends, www.childtrends.org, retrieved March 2009
16 See for example, McLaren, 2002, op cit; Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit; Hair et al, 2002, op cit
17 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit, p96
18 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
19 Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
20 Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L. and Foster, W (1998), Promoting health adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(4), 423-459
21 Finlay et al, 2007, op cit
22 See, for example, Van Brockern, S., Brendtro, L., Brokenleg, M (n.d.), Reclaiming our youth, www.augie.edu/dept/nast/Projects/doc6.htm, retrieved April 2009
23 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
24 Ibid
25 See, for example, Brown, B. B. (1990) cited in Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
26 Eccles, J. S. et al (2003) cited in HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
27 Dishon, T. J., McCord, J. and Poulin, F (1999) cited in Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
28 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
29 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit, p103
30 Van Brockern et al, no date, op cit
31 Martin, 2002, op cit
32 Allen and Clarke Policy and Regulatory Specialists Ltd (2003), Effective drug education for young people: An overview of the literature review and analysis. Wellington: Ministry of Youth Development
33 Roth and Brooks-Gunn, 2003, op cit
34 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
35 Bandura, A (1994), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman Publisher
36 International Youth Foundation, 1999, op cit
37 Ministry of Youth Affairs, Ministry of Health and Te Puni Kokiri (1998), In our hands: New Zealand youth suicide prevention strategy. Wellington
38 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
39 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit, p106
40 HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
41 Perkins and Menestrel, 2008, op cit
42 International Youth Foundation, 1999, op cit
43 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
44 International Youth Foundation, 1999, op cit
45 Cunningham et al, 2008, op cit
46 Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
47 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
48 International Youth Foundation, 1999, op cit
49 LaFromboise, T. and Howard-Pitney, B (1993) cited in Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
50 Compas, B. E (1993) cited in Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
51 Perkins, D. F. and Noam, G. G (2008), p75-84, In D. F. Perkins and S. Le Menestrel, op cit
52 Sport and Recreation New Zealand (2006), It’s all about children and young people: Implementing a child/young person centred philosophy in sport and recreation. www.sparc.org.nz
53 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit, p110
54 Ibid
55 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
56 Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
