Intervening to Facilitate Positive Youth Development
Intervening to Facilitate Positive Youth Development from the report: Youth Development Structured Programmes - A Review of Evidence.
What the evidence clearly shows is that young people have very different levels of access to the people, experiences and settings that can facilitate opportunities for positive development. In brief, it seems that adolescents in communities that are rich in developmental opportunities have higher rates of positive development, even amongst those youth deemed at-risk, compared with young people in communities that are poor in such supports and opportunities.1 2
The fundamental purpose of youth development programmes, regardless of who they target or how they organise their services, is to provide or facilitate developmental opportunities for young people. For young people living in developmentally opportunity-rich families and communities, youth development programmes are likely to supplement an existing array of beneficial opportunities. For young people who lack access to positive people and settings, however, youth development programmes could potentially represent a primary source of positive developmental opportunities and experiences.
A fundamental question for the youth development field generally is 'how do we best support young people in their adolescence and facilitate their successful transition to adulthood?'. For the purpose of this review, there is a much narrower question to be addressed: namely, 'what does a good youth development programme look like?'. Our ability to answer either of these questions with any degree of precision or certainty is, at this time, unfortunately somewhat limited.
The state of knowledge regarding youth development theory and practice is well described by Benson and Saito.
If one commissioned 10 writers to compose reviews of what we know about youth development, 10 very different papers would emerge. Perhaps a few studies and a few names would be constant. Ultimately, the overlap in references cited would be minimal. (The exercise of commissioning 10 reviews may be an intriguing method for unleashing needed debate and dialogue about what is inside the youth development box and what is outside.)
Our point is that the conceptual terrain for youth development is murky. There is no readily known and accessible literature. The work by definition is multidisciplinary, multilanguage and multisector.
While considerable progress has been made since these comments were written in 2000, the issues they highlight have by no means been resolved. More recently, Roth noted that what constitutes a youth development programme still has to be defined; a situation she suggests makes it difficult either to establish what constitutes best practice or to answer questions about the utility of the approach. Without this clear picture, Roth suggests we run the risk of creating a new set of programmes that follow a youth development approach in name only.
Connell et al. suggest the conceptual issues facing the youth development area are two-fold. The first is that what constitutes the 'youth development field' is too narrowly defined. Connell et al suggest youth development is currently conceived of as occurring within two settings: activities offered by community-based programmes and add-on or insertion programmes in schools or other institutional settings. This view unhelpfully excludes internal family interactions, intermittent interactions between youths and between youths and with adults, and the time that young people spend involved with public institutions such as schools, juvenile justice, health services and so forth. In contrast, what constitutes a 'youth development approach', Connell et al. suggest, is excessively broad. As an approach, "...we have trouble saying what [youth development] is not. The inclusionary impulse has produced a mind-boggling melange of principles, outcomes, assets, inputs, supports, opportunities, risks and competencies, much of which is only loosely tied to what actually happens in the daily lives of youths".3
The inability to draw on an agreed view of what youth development means, either as a field of endeavour or as a specific form of action, clearly poses some challenges for the conduct of this review. In practice, it has necessitated an attempt to weave together some kind of credible and cohesive picture from the myriad of ideas, beliefs, theory and evidence contained within the literature. For pragmatic reasons, emphasis has been placed on examining practical issues at the programme level rather than seeking to explore any of the larger, discipline-wide issues facing the youth development field.
A Strengths-Based Approach
Views on what constitutes the 'best approach' to facilitating a successful transition to adulthood have evolved over time. Our conceptualisation of adolescent development has shifted from a life stage focus, as depicted by 20th century scholars such as Piaget 4 and Erikson,5 to an ecological model where contextual factors and social settings are emphasised.6 Alongside this shift from a life-stage to an ecological understanding of young people has been a move away from a deficit-based and problem-focused view of young people to a view emphasising young people's resiliency and potential and the influence of environment.7 8 9
Efforts to help young people, framed within a deficit paradigm, typically involved preventing or fixing problems. The types of programmes associated with this paradigm tended to focus on a single issue, such as drug or alcohol abuse, teen-pregnancy and so forth.10 As our understanding of the social world advanced, the limitations of this view of young people and the associated approach became evident. Research into resiliency work, for example, demonstrated that most young people do well, sometimes in the face of incredible obstacles; a reality the deficit view of young people failed to capture or capitalise on. The emergence of a strengths-based approach to practice, where people were viewed as being "...'at promise' rather than 'at risk'...", was the result.11
In the context of youth development, taking a strengths-based approach means efforts are directed towards identifying the strengths or protective factors that help most people to lead happy and productive lives, and supporting them.12 Strengths help buffer against risk factors, which can lead to poor outcomes. A strengths-based approach helps to build resiliency in young people, which Barwick defines as a young person's ability to manage the balance between risks, stressful life events and protective factors.13 14 As interventions, strengths-based programmes take a holistic view of young people and often use multiple strands of activities to promote broad-scale (holistic) positive growth and development.
The literature (and I have done so here) has tended to polarise the deficit/problem and positive/strengths-based approaches in a way that I suspect is unhelpfully and unnecessarily restrictive, and that in all likelihood runs contrary to what many programmes actually do in practice.15 16 Eccles and Gootman assert that a risk- or problem-focused approach is inadequate as a total response to the needs of young people ('problem-free is not sufficient') but that focusing solely on broad-scale positive development fails to provide young people with the help they need to steer clear of specific obstacles.
There is a middle ground, which it appears the YDSA was attempting to encourage through its articulation of what constitutes a good approach to youth development within a NZ context.17 The strategy, which identified the use of a strengths-based approach as a key principle of good youth development practice, advocated that policies and programmes need to build young people's capacity to resist risks factors AND enhance their protective factors; ie, take a dual prevention and promotion focus. Combined with a competence-based, holistic and environmental view of young people, this seems a fairly pragmatic way of defining a strengths-based approach.
Goals and Outcomes
Providing young people with the opportunities and supports to foster broad, holistic development is the primary goal or purpose of youth development activity. At the individual programme level, there will be extensive variability in the specific goals and outcomes set, reflecting the lack of a unified youth development framework, but all should reflect some aspect of this overarching goal of broad developmental growth.
Broadly, both goals and outcomes will target some combination of the skills, attitudes, competencies and values discussed earlier in the report, whether they are expressed in those terms or in relation to assets, to the five (or six) 'C's' of youth development, as general statements about broadening young people's horizons, raising their expectations and aspirations, connecting them to more positive settings and so forth, or in some other form. (See Figure 2 for a definition of goals and outcomes.)
Figure 2. Programme Goals and Outcomes
|
Programme goals are essentially broad statements of expected outcomes, minus any reference to targets or timeframes. Alongside objectives, goals provide a general direction for the programme and a basic framework for the programme's activities or action.p> Outcomes refer to a measurable change in quality of life achieved by a client which may materialise in the short or longer term. Outcomes can be classified in a number of different ways, including on the basis of time since programme completion, as is described below.
|
Programme goals need to be closely tied into the current economic and social circumstances of the programme's setting. As economic and social conditions change, what is needed from a programme may also change. This is particularly evident at the current time, where a contracting economy means that inflows into employment by young people are reducing at the same time as outflows (into unemployment) are increasing. We know that attachment and engagement in positive activities and settings is critical for keeping young people on a positive life trajectory. Disengagement can result in young people falling into 'sink holes' of inactivity or anti-social activity from which from it can be difficult to escape. Youth development programmes in general have an important role to play in the current economy by keeping young people involved in activities that will facilitate their return, or move into, employment as the economy improves and is better-placed to accept them.
During the conduct of this review, it became apparent that some confusion existed about the nature of programme outcomes. A clear understanding of this aspect of programme operations is essential if effective programmes are to be designed. Programmes create opportunities for young people to build their assets (or skills etc). Programmes do this by involving young people in activities within settings that have the characteristics that (we believe) most encourage the development of those assets. By 'characteristics', one can include things like providing opportunities for young people to be involved with pro-social adults and peers, to participate and exert influence, to contribute and feel valued and so forth. In this respect, the activities and their associated settings represent mechanisms through which programme outcomes are achieved.
At the same time, attachment to settings that have those characteristics is also what enables young people to continue to grow and lead positive lives beyond the duration of a programme. Helping young people to develop relatively enduring (ie post-programme) access to positive settings (and thus people and opportunities) by deliberately connecting them to positive settings during a programme is therefore potentially one of a youth development programme's greatest contributions. Once in place, 'positive relationships with adults', for example, can effectively become enduring mentoring mechanisms within young people's natural environments. In that respect, what represent mechanisms for the development of assets/skills etc during a programme are also important programme goals and outcomes in their own right.
During the review, I encountered numerous instances where the development of positive relationships with the instructor and other course participants had been treated as programme outcomes. While these relationships are without doubt valuable, and in some cases may represent a considerable achievement, they are in essence valuable mechanisms rather than valuable outcomes. (At the most, an argument could be made for them being low order or immediate outcomes that facilitate the attainment of higher order outcomes relating to post programme life.) It is when relationships are established that can keep young people connected to positive settings in their natural environments in everyday, post programme life that they can be considered programme outcomes.
Programme Activities
Even a cursory glance at the literature reveals an enormous variability in the interventions deemed youth development programmes. The literature describes sports programmes, conservation and environmental programmes, arts, drama, culture and heritage programmes, outdoor adventure, work experience activities and so forth; all ostensibly falling within a 'youth development' framework.
The following section examines evidence relating to good practice in youth development, beyond simply the use of a strengths-based approach. The section covers the role of activities within a programme and the features and characteristics of activities and settings that best support positive youth development. It also considers the place of an underpinning therapeutic approach or practice model in youth development, and the evidence about additional programmatic elements that may influence programme effectiveness.
Choice of Activities
Activities are important because they are the way programmes attract participants.19 Special effort needs to be made to attract young people because programmes naturally compete with a myriad other potential distractions and activities for youth.20 According to Moore et al, the inclusion of a variety of activities within a single programme is endorsed by both research and practical wisdom that suggests this is the best way of meeting the diverse interests, as well as the diverse learning needs and styles of young people.21
Beyond attracting young people's interest, activities are also important because they are the vehicle through which young people gain access to the opportunities and settings that will foster the development of important skills, attitudes, competencies and values. There is a growing body of evidence indicating it is the nature and characteristics of the activities used when assisting young people that have the greatest effect on their outcomes, rather than the activity per se.22 This evidence suggests that there may be no such thing as 'the best' activity or the 'most youth development-ish' activity. Rather, what seems to matter most is that activities are chosen on the basis of their appeal to young people, their ability to provide the desired developmental experiences, and that they reflect the characteristics and features the literature suggests best facilitate successful youth development.
In the first instance, activities have, in and of themselves, particular characteristics that affect both their appeal for different young people and their suitability in terms of being able to create the kinds of opportunities that are believed to facilitate particular types of developmental growth – noting that the literature seems a long way from being able to empirically demonstrate the precise contribution of individual activities to outcomes or the ability of individual activities to facilitate certain types of outcomes relative to each other.
In the case of wilderness activities, for example, the literature suggests they meet young people's need for excitement, challenge and stimulation. They provide real-life experiences and, by removing young people from their normal setting for a period of time, an escape mechanism from family pressures and negative peer influences. They create an 'equalising effect' amongst group members because of the novel/unfamiliar nature of the setting and activities.23 24 25 They also demand certain responses that are of value: "cooperation, clear thinking and planning, careful observation, resourcefulness, persistence and adaptability... [which] are not demanded by the environment, per se, but rather the manner in which the program forces students to interact with the environment".26
Service or voluntary activities, by contrast, provide opportunities for young people to experience what it is like to contribute in some way to their community. They require young people to use a range of skills, potentially in an environment that exposes them to a wider range of social and cultural networks.27 Work experience activities provide an opportunity for young people to experience first-hand what employment actually involves. Work placements enable young people to try out different vocational options before committing to career-specific training or more permanent employment. They also serve to highlight the kinds of life skills that young people need for successful employment. On the other side of the equation, the participating employer organisation has the opportunity to learn about the young person's potential suitability as a worker, which may result in them being willing to subsequently act as a referee for the young person or hire them.28 29 30 Conservation activities provide a number of opportunities that seemingly represent a blend of those associated with outdoor/wilderness, service and work experience activities.
Art, music, drama and dance activities are considered to challenge and stretch young people, require them to work as a team, and encourage open-mindedness and creativity.31 While some of these characteristics are similar to those associated with outdoor adventure/wilderness programmes, the nature of the vehicle may be of greater appeal to those young people who dislike outdoor or certain types of physical activity.
Beyond these core characteristics, there are also a number of characteristics discussed in the literature that relate more to the way in which activities are delivered, or the broader settings in which activities are delivered, rather than to the essential nature of the activity.
Effective programmes have high aspirations for, and expectations of, young people. They are well planned, with activities deliberately designed to progressively build on existing skills and competencies. They also have a 'deliberate learning environment', where learning opportunities are built into activities rather than assumed to simply arise as a result of participation (see Appendix 3), and they meaningfully involve young people in the design and conduct of activities. This serves a dual purpose of providing young people with opportunities to direct and control their activities and environment and helping to assure a programme's or activities' relevance.32 33
The quality of activities is also high in successful programmes, with activities delivered by a skilled and confident workforce.34 This is critical because young people need to think highly of the services available to them if they are to take up the opportunities that those services can offer.35
The quality and content of activities, is in turn, dependent on the available financial, human and material resources.36 There is a clear link between the level of resources allocated to a service and the quality of its work; although some services do seem to perform well despite minimal resources.37 Ofsted found that "young people achieved high standards when workers had a good blend of qualifications and experience, the work was well planned and balanced effectively between recreational and educational aims".38 The availability of well trained, high quality staff, who stay long enough to build trusting relationships with young people is integral to programme success, as is sustained funding.39
Eccles and Gootman similarly emphasise that the key to effective programmes appears to lie not in the choice of activity per se, but beyond. In their case, they emphasise the importance of features or characteristics in relation to settings.
There are certain features of settings that young people spend time in, be they family, school or community, that affect how they develop - for better or worse. The more opportunities young people have to experience settings with features associated with positive development, the better off they will be.40 These features, it seems, can be deliberately incorporated into the design of youth development programmes both through and irrespective of the particular activities chosen. They can be considered the 'active ingredients' in effective youth development programmes.41 Programmes that incorporate these features, or as many as possible as it is unrealistic to expect all programmes will incorporate all features, can make up for the absence of these features in young people's other settings.42
As part of a multidisciplinary committee comprising representatives of America’s National Research Council, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, Eccles and Gootman conducted a large scale review of evidence on the features associated with positive adolescent development across the different settings that young people spend time in. Drawing on the theory and research of a range of disciplines, they ultimately identified a list of features which they believe facilitate positive youth development and should be incorporated into youth development programmes. They emphasise that further refinement and testing is needed to establish the precise content and relative contributions of each feature.
Each of these features is discussed in Appendix 3. Summarised here, these features include:
- physical and psychological safety and security
- structure that is developmentally appropriate, with clear expectations for behaviour as well as increasing opportunities to make decisions, to participate in governance and rule-making, and to take on leadership roles as one matures and gains more expertise
- emotional and moral support
- opportunities for adolescents to experience supportive adult relationships
- opportunities to learn how to form close, durable human relationships with peers that support and reinforce healthy behaviours
- opportunities to feel a sense of belonging and being valued
- opportunities to develop positive social values and norms
- opportunities for skill building and mastery
- opportunities to develop confidence in one’s abilities to master one’s environment (a sense of personal efficacy)
- opportunities to make a contribution to one’s community and to develop a sense of mattering, and
- strong links between families, schools, and broader community resources.43
Therapeutic Approach and Practice Model
In understanding what makes a good youth development programme, it is important to consider matters relating to the style of interaction between practitioner and young person, to the specific learning and engagement techniques used to promote change, and the theoretical models that underpin those techniques. According to youth development practitioners spoken with during the review, the way in which practitioners engage, interact with and attempt to influence (or not) young people also more fundamentally determines what makes something a youth development programme as opposed to some other kind of youth-targeted programme, such as a recreational programme or an educational one. KPMG Peat Marwick's 1990 evaluation of NZCC found the emphasis was placed on the conduct/completion of tasks rather than on personal development, which may well represent inadequate attention to matters of therapeutic approach and practice.44
For the purpose of this review, the terms 'therapeutic approach' and 'practice model' have been used to encapsulate these ideas, although I am not entirely confident of the accuracy or appropriateness of those two terms and noting that the use of the term 'therapy' by Priest and Glass to describe a distinct class of programme has the potential to create some confusion amongst readers.45
In most disciplines or fields, it is common for students to spend time understanding their practice model and the theoretical/conceptual models that underpin it. In areas like social work and nursing, for example, it would be one of the foundational components of students' training. During this review, no references were found to the term 'practice model' or a similar concept in the youth development literature. There was extensive consideration of practice models and therapeutic models within the wilderness therapy area. While there are some overlapping areas of interest, this area is quite distinct from youth development and (effective) practitioners have substantially more professional training and expertise.
Within the literature, articles tended to focus on individual elements that might form part of a therapeutic approach or practice model for youth development rather than address the topic of therapeutic approach directly. There was widespread agreement, for example, that the relationship between practitioner and young person was instrumental in facilitating change but the literature tended to focus on characteristics that comprised effective adult/young person relationships rather than the general area of therapeutic approach. Other literature addressed specific aspects of the overall area: Martin's writing on youth work, for example, presents material to support good youth work practice, inherent in which is a theoretical understanding of how to facilitate engagement, learning and growth.46 47 There were discussions of single models of relevance to youth development practice, for example, Kolb's experiential learning model48 and the scientist-practitioner model.49
The result of this is that it is difficult to articulate here what it is that characterises good practice in terms of therapeutic approach/practice model in youth development programmes, beyond those elements that have already been set out in the discussion of 'key features of settings'. These include, for example, what constitutes a good relationship between adult and young person, the need for emotional and moral support, type of structure and supervision needed and so forth. This seems to be a critical aspect of youth development practice and worthy of deliberate focus.
Other Programmatic Elements and Characteristics
There are a number of additional programmatic elements that will affect the overall effectiveness of a youth development programme, beyond the activities discussed previously and the features of settings that should be reflected in individual programmes.
Programme Duration, Intensity and Course Size
Evidence on duration, intensity and course size for the review was derived from quasi experimental and non experimental research and practical wisdom. The review was unable to identify any evaluation work that specifically isolated the contribution of any of these three elements to programme outcomes.
There is enormous variability in the length of youth development and youth-focused programmes generally. Participants in America's Job Corp programme, an employment-focused programme that includes broad development goals, can choose how long they wish to stay. A 2008 study reported the average stay was eight months, with slightly under one quarter staying beyond a year.50 The Californian Cons Corp programme runs for approximately one year, although participants can choose both to exit earlier and to commit to further involvement beyond this year.51 At the other end of the spectrum are programmes like outdoor adventure courses which tend to run from a few days to a few weeks.
The youth development literature quite strongly emphasises the value of longer programmes over shorter ones. This is most notable in the mentoring area but also true of other types of development programmes. According to Moore et al, practical wisdom identifies programme duration, along with intensity or programme 'dosage', as one of the most important aspects of programming.52
In the case of mentoring, the adage 'longer is better' does seem to hold true, reflecting the time it takes to build the type of relationship between mentor and mentee that supports positive development. The World Bank's policy toolkit for supporting at risk youth suggests that the development of trust between mentor and mentee normally takes at least a year.53 Ensuring sufficient time is allowed to develop the relationship makes sense given that the relationship essentially is the mechanism for change in a mentoring programme.54
For other programme types, however, the basis for 'longer is better' is less clear. A 1999 evaluation of NZCC and YSC reported that ten weeks was considered by some providers to be sufficient for some participants, while twenty weeks was considered necessary for others.55 The final conclusion was that twenty weeks was "probably about right for most members".56 The extent to which weight can be placed on this conclusion is limited given the nature of the evaluation design.
The impact evaluation of the American Youth Corps, which includes the California Conservation Corp on which NZCC and YSC are modelled, found no difference in participant outcomes when examined by their length of stay in the programme.57 The seemingly most-cited study addressing duration within the youth development literature, Hattie et al's meta-analysis of the effects of adventure programmes on outcomes, found the effects on students' outcomes were similar regardless of duration.58 59 Catalano conducted one of the more substantive reviews on effective youth development programmes and concluded that, amongst the 'themes common to success' was that most of the programmes ran for nine months or more.60 This work is often cited by others as evidence that programmes should be long. More recently, key academics in the youth development field have justifiably highlighted the limitations surrounding this interpretation of evidence.61 A more accurate interpretation of this work is that, of the studies included in the review, (a sample likely to be biased towards more substantial programmes), approximately 80% of those programmes deemed effective lasted for a period of nine months or more. Viewed in aggregate, the evidence seemingly leaves us with no definitive picture of the contribution of programme duration to programme outcomes.
The literature provides even less information on intensity/dosage and course size that it does on duration. Moore et al' review of programmes for 6-17 year olds included: experimental studies that supported higher programme intensity/dosage for some age groups (including the older teens) in some cases; non-experimental studies that found higher dosage was better, especially for mentoring programmes; and again endorsement from providers.62 In a very general way, this lends some support to the notion of greater rather that lower programme intensity.
Optimal course size seems to be influenced by a number of factors including programme type, participant age and needs, staff ability, and programme resources.63 Given this variability, Moore et al suggest providers can most probably determine for themselves what group size would be optimal for their specific group.64
Assessment
The youth development literature emphasises the importance of programmes being responsive to individual participants' needs and building on their strengths, yet provides very little specific comment on how individual needs or strengths might be determined. The lack of discussion of this aspect of programme activity within the youth development literature may well be, at least in part, an artefact of the ideology that underpins youth development and potentially the skill sets of those working in the field, such as youth workers.
The use of a strengths-based approach is a fundamental characteristic of youth development practice. This has sometimes been interpreted as an exclusive focus on strengths, rather than a dual focus on promoting strengths and responding to specific problems as has been the interpretation used in the current review.65 When the focus is on building strengths, carrying out semi-formal or formal assessments in order to identify issues and potentially problems may well seem unnecessary, not to mention potentially the antithesis of good practice.
Further, youth development work is often carried out by youth workers with limited, ad hoc or quite narrowly focused professional training. Some may have never been taught how to carry out an assessment or exposed to specific tools, even assuming ideological support for their use.
There are large bodies of literature devoted to screening and assessment across different disciplines. Many of the approaches and tools set out in areas like education, psychology, neuropsychology, and youth justice do have a strong 'pathology' or deficit focus, seeking to identify and oftentimes quantify the prevalence/magnitude of certain problem behaviours or conditions. Considerable training and professional expertise is also required for meaningful and reliable answers to be produced from such assessment activities.
It is not essential, however, that either a deficit focus or complexity characterise an assessment process. Ultimately, assessment is simply a process of collecting information about someone and using that information to form a picture of their situation, oftentimes as a basis of providing some form of service.66 Different methods may be used to capture this information, which may come from a range of sources, including discussion with the individual and/or others who know the individual, direct observation, documentation and, if desired, the use of specific tools (customised or standardised). Even the last of these methods can be quite basic and involve only a small amount of instruction or training.
Further, it is possible to conduct assessment from a strengths perspective. The social work area particularly contains literature on how to conduct strengths-based assessments (and also strengths-based case management, which has some parallels with youth work practice).67
Figure 3. A Framework for Strengths-Based Assessment
Cowger and Snively provide a basic framework for strengths-based assessment (see Figure 2 below).68 Taking a strengths-based approach to assessment, they suggest, means that the areas encompassed within the two quadrants in Figure 2 relating to strengths (environment and client-focused) are emphasised but all four quadrants are ultimately included. The 'environmental factors' would include social and political areas, while factors intrinsic to the individual (physical, physiological, and psychological) would fall into the 'client' quadrants.
The kinds of questions asked during a discussion between a youth worker and young person might be as basic as the following:
- who is important to you in your life
- what do you do during a normal day
- what makes your life worth living
- what is going well for you right now
- if things could be different, what would you wish for
- what was worked well for you in the past?69
While the answers to these questions won't address all information needs, particularly with respect to matters of client health and safety, they may be a useful starting point for further discussion. Subsequent discussion may, as useful, span a range of domains including housing, transport, finance, vocation/education, social, health and leisure.70
Goal Setting and Personal Planning
The literature seems fairly consistent in its assertion that youth development activities should seek to raise young people's aspirations, in conjunction with the resources they have to draw on to fulfil those aspirations. Resources tend to be conceived of, however, in terms of personal attributes and access to external supports such as positive people and opportunities. The contribution of specific activities like planning were not discussed, at least in any articles located during this review, within the context of individual youth development programmes.
Virtually all the material located for the review was drawn from other disciplines, such as nursing (in the context of discharge planning), social work (exit from care) or the general vocational intervention literature. General principles or practices have been extracted from this literature and discussed here in terms of their relevance or applicability to the youth development area.
The process of goal setting can be used in programmes to help set direction for activity, during a programme as well as subsequent to it, and as a basis for viewing progress. Despite the apparent lack of attention devoted to this activity in the youth development literature, goal setting is, according to Roberts-Grey et al, part of the recommended best practice for what they term 'youth empowerment programmes'.71 72 Roberts-Grey et al suggest actual methods for setting goals are often left to the discretion of the individual programme provider; the preferred approach depending on the type of service being provided and the type of person receiving the services.73
As an activity, goal setting is inextricably linked to a person's sense of self-efficacy; the belief that desired goals can be achieved through one's own actions.74 The ability, or even the willingness, of a young person to set goals as part of a programme is therefore likely to be variable and change over time.
The goal setting process ideally feeds into the development of personal plans, which set out the intended direction, type, and practical details associated with, future activities. As with goals, the activities included within a plan may relate to the programme itself as well as to the time following. Consistent with notions of flexibility and service responsiveness, research in the employment assistance area has not surprisingly found that individually tailored action plans are more effective than standardised plans.75
The importance of preparing people for life post programme/intervention as early as possible is emphasised in the literature. A fundamental principle of discharge planning within a medical setting, seemingly one of the better-developed related bodies of theory, is that it begins on hospital admission as opposed to waiting until near the end of treatment.76 This doesn't mean all details of post-intervention life are resolved in detail in the early stages; it does mean that activities are carried out with an awareness that they are building towards something that extends beyond the immediate/short term, and that planning for different aspects of post-discharge life occurs as soon as is practically possible. This approach recognises that planning is a process rather than an event.77
This logic, if not completely transferable to the youth development area, would seem to have at least some relevance to it. Ensuring young people remain positively 'activated' or engaged post programme is integral to the transition process. While there will be constraints on what a young person is able to consider at different stages of a programme, it seems entirely plausible that preparing for the transition phase from the early stages of a programme is more likely to facilitate a successful transition than waiting until the young person is about to exit the programme before related issues are raised.
Part of preparation for post-programme life involves readying young people for the actual end of the programme. It is suggested that specific actions are required to ensure programme closure is a positive experience for all, including carrying out activities which acknowledge different people's efforts and contributions.78 While given in the context of a mentoring programme, this advice seems applicable to youth development programmes more generally.
The greater part of the process involves identifying the activities that young people will be involved in post programme, making necessary arrangements before the programme ends (eg referrals, course enrolment), and putting in place the practical supports that may be needed to encourage or enable participation. Programmes that provide specific referrals to support services have been found to be effective at helping participants gain access to those services,79 but follow-up may be needed to ensure that young people actually act on those referrals. In the context of employment programmes, keeping regular progress checks on plans has been identified as an important feature of successful case management.80
Footnotes
1 Benson, P. L, 1997, cited in Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
2 Blyth, D and Leffert, N, 1995, cited in Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
3 Connell et al, 2000, op cit
4 Piaget, J (1965), The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free Press; Piaget, J (1952), The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press
5 Erikson, E (1968), Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton
6 Bronfenbrenner, U. and Morris, P (1998), The ecology of developmental process. In W. Damon and R. Lerner (Eds), Handbook of Child Psychology, New York: John Wiley
7 Butts, J (2008), Beyond the tunnel problem: Addressing cross-cutting issues that impact vulnerable youth. Briefing paper #3: A sensible model for juvenile justice. Youth Transition Funders Group
8 Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
9 Beatty and Chalk, 2006, op cit
10 Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
11 Barwick, H (2004), Young males: Strengths-based and male-focused approaches. Wellington: Ministry of Youth Development, p12
12 Barwick, 2004, op cit
13 Ibid
14 Note the area of resiliency is an enormous one and there are numerous and continuously evolving understandings of how to view and define it, promote it, measure it and so forth. I have chosen to provide a simple explanation of resiliency here and leave it to the reader to explore the area further if they wish
15 Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
16 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
17 Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa, 2002, op cit
18 Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M. And Martin, L. L (2008), Designing and managing programs: An effectiveness-based approach (3rd Ed). LA: Sage Publications
19 Roth and Brooks-Gunn, 2003, op cit
20 Moore et al, 2006, op cit
21 Ibid
22 HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007), Aiming high for young people: A ten year strategy for positive activities. www.hm-treasury.gov.uk, retrieved March 2009
23 Garst, B., Scheider, I. and Baker, D (2001), Outdoor adventure program participation: Impacts on adolescent self-perception, The Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), p41-49
24 Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T. (1997), Adventure education and Outwards Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference, Review of Educational Research, 67(1), p43-87
25 Schoel, J., Prouty, D. and Radcliffe, P (1988), Islands of healing: A guide to adventure based counselling. USA: Project Adventures Inc
26 Rhoades, 1972 cited in Hattie et al, 1997 op cit, p43
27 Finlay, A. K., Flanagan, C. and Black, S (2007), Service as a developmental opportunity: Building connections for vulnerable youths. www.nylc.org, retrieved March 2009
28 Department of Work and Income (1998), Job Intro, Job Link and Job Plus training (J3 programmes): Evaluation report. Wellington: DWI
29 United Kingdom Select Committee (2001), Third report: Recruiting Unemployed people. House of Commons, www.publications.parliament.uk, retrieved May 2009
30 Newton, B., Hurstfield, J., Miller, L., Page, R. and Akroyd, K (2005), What employers look for when recruiting the unemployed and inactive: skills, characteristics and qualifications. A report of research carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. DWP
31 HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
32 International Youth Foundation (1999), Making youth programs work: Framework for effective programming
33 Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, training and Youth Affairs (2000), National Youth Development Strategy. Adelaide: Ausyouth
34 HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
35 Ibid
36 Ibid
37 Ofsted (2005) cited in HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
38 Ofsted (2005) cited in HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit, p24
39 Merton et al. (2004) cited in HM Treasury and Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, op cit
40 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
41 Ibid
42 Ibid
43 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
44 KPMG Peat Marwick (1990), New Zealand Conservation Corps Programme Evaluation. Wellington, NZ: KPMG Peat Marwick
45 Priest, S., and Gass, M (1997), Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
46 Martin, L (2006), Real work: A report from the national research project on the state of youth work in Aotearoa. Christchurch, NZ: National Youth Workers Network
47 Martin, L (2002), The invisible table: Perspectives on youth and youthwork in New Zealand. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press
48 Kolb, D. A (1984), Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
49 Shapiro, D (2002), Renewing the scientist-practitioner model, The Psychologist, 15 (5), p232-234
50 Schochet, P. Z., Burghardt, J. and McConnell, S (2008), Does Job Corps work? Impact findings from the national Job Corps study, American Economic Review, 98 (5), p1864-1886
51 See www.ccc.ca.gov
52 Moore et al, 2006, op cit
53 Cunningham, W., Cohan, L. M., Naudeau, S. and McGinnis, L (2008), Supporting youth at risk: A policy toolkit for middle income countries. The World Bank, www.worldbank.org, retrieved March 2009
54 Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C. and Scarupa, H. J (2002), Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development, Child Trends Research Brief, www.childtrends.org, retrieved April 2009
55 Broome, A (1999), The New Zealand Conservation Corps: A recipe for successful youth development. Wellington: Ministry of Youth Affairs
56 Broom, 1999, op cit, p36
57 Jastrzab, J., Masker, J., Bloomquist, J. and Orr, L (1996), Impacts of service: Final report on the evaluation of American Conservation and Youth Corps. Cambridge, Mass: Abt Associates, www.abtassociates.com, retrieved May 2009
58 Hattie et al, 1997, op cit
59 The extent to which the study’s findings are applicable to NZCC and YSC is extremely limited due to differences in programme design; it is included as it is one of the most commonly-cited studies in the youth development literature
60 Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
61 See, for example, Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op ci
62 Moore et al, 2006, op cit
63 Ibid
64 Ibid
65 Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit
66 Hodge, R. D (2001), The juvenile offender: Theory, research and applications. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
67 See, for example, Saleebey, D (Ed), (2002), The strengths perspective in social work practice (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon
68 Cowger, C. D and Snively, C. A (2002), Assessing client strengths: Individual, family and community empowerment, p106-123. In Saleebey, 2002, op cit
69 Fast, B and Chapin, R (2002), The strengths model with older adults: Critical practice components, p143-162. In Saleebey, 2002, op cit
70 Ibid
71 Roberts-Grey, C., Steinfeld, S. and Bailey, W (1999), Goal setting and progress evaluation in youth empowerment programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), p21-30
72 Note the programmes included in their study are comparable with those programmes typically termed youth development within the literature
73 Roberts-Grey et al, 1999, op cit
74 Bandura, A (1989) cited in Catalano et al, 2004, op cit
75 Eardley, T and Thompson, M (1997), cited in Higgins, 2003, op cit
76 Department of Human Services (2007), Best practice Information package: Discharge planning for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. Victoria: State Government, www.sciencedirect.com, retrieved April 2009
77 See ACT Health (2006), Discharge planning policy, www.health.vic.gov.au, retrieved April 2009
78 The Youth Mentoring Trust, New Zealand, www.youthmentoring.org.nz/tools, retrieved April 2009
79 Hair, E., Ling, T. and Cochran, S. W (2003), Youth development programs and educationally disadvantaged older youths: A synthesis. Child Trends, www.childtrends.org, retrieved March 2009
80 Higgins, 2003, op cit
