|
SUMMARIES OF FOUR REVIEWS OF
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
|
section:   |
|
sub-section:   
BEST PRACTICES #2
MORE Things That DO Make a Difference for Youth (1999)
Produced by the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF)
This Compendium (like the first) contains nearly 50 summaries of evaluations of youth interventions that are shown to improve the lives of young people
-
this second of two volumes provides an opportunity to examine the “best practices” for helping young people achieve healthy and productive adult lives
-
it’s a useful tool for policymakers, practitioners and funders who must decide how to invest scarce resources where they will have the most positive impacts
-
for researchers, these volumes contain models for studies that can be both rigorous and practical, providing much needed information to decision-makers and implementers
-
also be a source of ideas and practical lessons on effective principles and practices related to youth for policymakers, practitioners and funders
-
in an easy-to-read format, these summaries highlight research findings, describe the key components, and share what is known about the ingredients of success underlying each program
-
it offers a broad picture of effective programs addressing a variety of concerns related to youth, from increasing academic achievement to reducing criminal behavior
-
involving parents and communities has been the specialty of voluntary youth serving organizations, but not of career preparation programs, while working with employers has been the specialty of career preparation programs, but not necessarily of juvenile justice
Over 150 documents were reviewed according to three criteria: program characteristics, data produced and quality of evaluation:
Program characteristics: programs and practices had to target youth and aim for long-term influence on participants. Following these criteria, strong evaluations of welfare-to-work programs were rejected because they lacked information on how the programs affected young recipients. Good evaluations of short-term programs were similarly excluded.
Data produced: successful programs are defined as programs that promote positive changes in participants’ lives. Therefore evaluations with negative or controversial findings were left to a future volume (due to limited budget) and relied on satisfaction surveys and self-esteem scales. Wanted to know whether the programs were improving youth academic achievements (test scores, dropout rates, post secondary educational attainment), increasing employment and better earnings, and reducing risky behaviors.
Each of the chosen studies were summaries and are organized in three sections:
The first section, Education and Career Development, provides the reader with an overview of a variety of approaches being used to improve public education: from small, privately funded efforts to enhance the educational achievement of minority and low-income students to large, federally supported initiatives. Three important movements in public education today are not represented in this volume, because the authors were unable to find strong evaluations or researchers were unwilling to share their findings: charter schools, school vouchers and special education.
The second section, Building Strong Communities, includes service-learning programs and programs primarily conducted outside of schools. The majority of these initiatives target youth who, due to social, cultural, economic or psychological characteristics, are at risk of failing in school and/or becoming involved with the judicial system.
The third section — Of Interest — includes a selection of recent studies dealing with a variety of topics of special interest for those involved with youth policies and practices, including health behavior among adolescents, factors that predict employment for school dropouts, and what is happening with youth who obtain a GED credential in place of a high school diploma. Although AYPF focuses on youth ages 14 to 29, they included evaluations of two early intervention programs, High/Scope Perry Preschool and Head Start, to address research claims that antisocial behaviors start in early ages and prevention and early intervention may be the most cost-effective way to deal with these behaviors.
An Overview of the Findings:
This Compendium expands on the list of basic principles from Volume I
-
Implementation quality
-
Caring, knowledgeable adults
-
High standards and expectations
-
Parent/guardian participation
-
Importance of community
-
Holistic approach
-
Youth as resources/community service and service learning
-
Work-based learning
-
Long-term services/support and follow-up
*Note: The details of what each of these mean is outlined in the “Introduction” to the document
(this part is 5pgs long and so I have not included it hear, but it is likely worth acquiring - especially given it expands on the first set of principles). Following are some obvious additions:
1) Successful programs do not water down their standards to accommodate “at-risk” students
-
they maintain high standards and offer supports so that all students can attain those standards
-
many schools tend to enroll low-income, particularly minority students, in less academically demanding courses under the assumption that they would fail otherwise and would be pushed into dropping out of school
-
these summaries show many examples in which low-income, minority, and limited English-speaking students succeed academically at high levels when challenged
2) Needs to be an openness to embrace entire communities in efforts to serve young people
-
small, family-like settings provide youth with a sense of safety and belonging
-
broader community collaboration and adaptation to community needs significant to program success (e.g., involve community members in community needs assessments, program designs to meet these needs, program operation and staffing)
-
Note: definitions of “community” vary so continued research on the role of community members in youth programming could provide more exact information on this finding
3) Utilize a Holistic Approach
-
deeply caring about and building relationships with young people seems to move programs well beyond a traditional focus on negative behaviors—early school leaving, early unwanted pregnancies, and drug and alcohol use—to a comprehensive and multi-dimensional focus on the individual
-
treating individuals holistically may provide sufficient “protective factors” to overcome a variety of “risk factors” – this is often referred to as building youth “resiliency”
-
this approach may prevent one or more of the many behavioral indications of deeper problems manifested by young people (e.g., focuses on the mentoring relationship and not specifically on eliminating drug and alcohol use, but has been found to reduce drug and alcohol use among youth participants)
-
the provision of comprehensive services on-site or through cooperating agencies is important to program success and increases the likelihood that these services will be used and will make a difference (more so than if referrals to other services were made)
-
comprehensive services include general medical, dental, eye care, nutrition, mental health services, interventions for serious behavioral problems, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, interfaces with the juvenile justice system, violence and pregnancy prevention, career exploration, physical fitness and recreation
-
other things to consider in developing an holistic approach:
-
block scheduling
-
extended hours (evenings, weekends)
-
team teaching
-
individualized attention
-
hands-on instruction
-
enrichment activities (drama clubs, museum visits, concerts, field trips)
-
culturally-sensitive activities
-
child care and transportation
-
life skills and assertiveness training
-
recognition/rewards
-
a focus on peer support
-
focuses on eliminating youth deficits to supporting youth assets
-
youth not only receive services, but provide them, thereby changing from participants into partners (from being cared for, into key resources for their communities)
-
for example, youth and adults serve jointly on grant-making boards of directors and have equal voting privileges, providing leadership and making decisions as they provide grants to other young people to carry out community service projects
 |
|
|
|
