Abstract
Results of a two-year evaluation of youth leadership programs offered within community youth development programs in Connecticut are presented. Youth involved in leadership activities were contrasted with a comparison group of youth who were not involved in leadership programming. Participants in the leadership programs reported an improved sense of support from their local communities. Leadership training also appeared to offer an added benefit to males who reported significant improvements in their social self-efficacy in contrast to females engaged in leadership programs or youth comprising the comparison group. Youth who participated in the leadership programs appeared to be a uniquely talented group of individuals, initially scoring higher than the comparison group on a variety of youth outcome measures. However, a subgroup of youth who began the leadership program at a lower level of overall functioning were more likely than youth who began the program at a higher level of functioning to report positive changes.
Highlights
In recent years, youth development scholars have called for a paradigm shift from deterrence to development
All youth development programs attempt to offer a variety of important features such as: (1) a safe setting; (2) supportive relationships; (3) challenging activities; and (4) meaningful involvement (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1995; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Pittman & Wright, 1991; Connell, Aber, & Walker, 1995)
Contacts with staff in these programs may be limited to specific activities or informal socializing as opposed to opportunities to work with staff and other community leaders in a focused way that involves taking on active leadership and decision-making roles (Hawkins, Arthur, & Olsen, 1998)
Summary
Youth development scholars have called for a paradigm shift from deterrence to development. Programs that subscribe to this framework seek to positively influence youth development by fostering intellectual, social and emotional competencies. These competencies serve as protective factors that lessen the likelihood that youth will engage in harmful or destructive behaviors. & Gootman, 2002; Pittman & Wright, 1991; Connell, Aber, & Walker, 1995) These programs often blend meaningful relationships with staff and peers with an array of recreational, academic (after-school mentoring, tutoring), arts, social (trips, clubs, dances) or community service experiences, in which youth develop social, academic, cultural, or life skills (Larson, 2000; McLaughlin, 2000). Contacts with staff in these programs may be limited to specific activities or informal socializing as opposed to opportunities to work with staff and other community leaders in a focused way that involves taking on active leadership and decision-making roles (Hawkins, Arthur, & Olsen, 1998)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
