-Karen Pittman, IYF-US, International Youth Foundation

The change in century and millenium offers a timely and necessary opportunity for reflection. In this article, Karen Pittman reflects on 40 years of changes in approaches to working with and for marginalized young people. Despite the progress we have achieved during this time, the author reminds us that young people must not only have access to resources and opportunities, but also become active in sharing and exercising power if we are to achieve our vision.

The decades between 1960 and 2000 have seen tremendous shifts in youth policy and practice in the U.S. These shifts have altered the definition of young people's responsibilities, rights, competencies, and needs, as well as those of their families, institutions, and communities. Changes are evident in the way youth, family, and community issues are framed--for example, how the "deficits" language has been softened by the concept of "assets." We've witnessed a shift in the roles that young people, families, and community residents are encouraged to play, as stakeholders in their own development. In addition, the youth, family, and community fields have come to understand that the well being of their respective populations rests in collaborative efforts. Most importantly, and most recently, there has been a growing awareness of the synergy created when young people, families, and community stakeholders plan and implement projects together. Reflecting on the past four decades provides context for the future and highlights the challenges that lie ahead of us.

Looking Back
1960s. The '60s witnessed a growth in public and political attention to identifying and understanding youth with serious problems, such as dropouts, runaways, unwed parents, abused children and youth, and delinquents. Who were they? Why were they in trouble? What did they need? Numbers of youth with problems were rising, as was the associated direct costs; and recognition that the indirect costs associated with the loss of skilled human capitals were emerging. Dollars began to flow to increase the capacity to work with these populations in public institutions.

1970s. The birth of a response to these young people focused on alternative youth services. The growth of these programs, made possible by increases in federal and state dollars for "troubled" youth, marked a shift in thinking about working with young people in difficult circumstances. Though these youth were in need of help, they were seen as capable of making decisions and helping themselves. The programs built on, rather than squelched, young people's sense that they can make a difference. By the end of the '70s the calls for programs that addressed young people's needs before they ran away, dropped out, or became pregnant began to grow. It was during this time that the National Network for Youth was established.

1980s. A new emphasis on primary prevention took hold in the '80s. Practitioners and policymakers honed in on the high cost and modest effectiveness of crisis programs, but the focus remained on reducing problems. Hundred of programs and curricula emerged to stop teens from drinking, smoking, having sex (or unprotected sex), being truant, or violent. As the redundancies became clear (multiple programs targeting the same young people), the calls for comprehensive prevention programs grew louder.

1990s. It was in this decade that the youth development approach began to take root. The idea that "problem-free is not fully prepared" took hold. This sparked calls for increased funding of nonproblem-focused programming, in addition to changes in approach and funding among programs and practitioners who traditionally worked with vulnerable youth. The National Collaboration for Youth grew in members and visibility. Youth worker training received attention. The idea that "young people grow up in communities, not programs" also gained currency, encouraging a new call for greater community investment in youth development. A renewed emphasis was placed on the establishment of the National Commission on Youth and Community Service. It was also during this time that the National Network for Youth coined the term "Community Youth Development" to signal a new approach to youth development. This approach was powered by the belief that young people and adults could work together to change their communities into places where young people could grow up healthy.

Looking Forward
The good news is that youth participation is in. It has emerged as a powerful strategy for engaging older youth. It holds the promise of instilling civic and social responsibility in adolescents and young adults, and bringing new energy and optimism to community problem solving. But balancing the goals of individual youth development and youth and adult action for community change will require significant work. And staying committed to the young people most in need will require constant vigilance.

The Next Paradigm Shift: From Youth Participation for Youth Development to Youth and Adult Partnerships for Community Change
As noted, there has been significant progress made in promoting the argument that community change is critical to youth development--indeed, young people do not grow up in programs, they grow up in communities. And the argument that meaningful participation is critical to youth development has been well documented--especially among older youth who are ready not only for more choice and voice, but more opportunities to have a visible impact. But the idea that youth participation is critical to community change has not been firmly embraced (see figure 1). Without constant vigilance, youth participation will be promoted as a community program rather than as a community principle.

Figure 1

Data from Community Change for Youth Development, a multi-year demonstration project undertaken by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) to assess the capacity and impact of a community's ability to increase the "core vitamins" for youth development, can be used to demonstrate this point. Youth surveys in three communities revealed that young people are aware of their own needs as well as the needs of their communities. The data confirms that young people know what the problems are and have a sense of how to address them and, with the right support and resources, can make a positive change. Consider the following:

• Young people feel the affects of crime and violence
• They see the results of idleness and lack of supervision
• They frequently participate in structured activities as young teens, but participation declines with age
• They lack work and employment opportunities
• They want adult support
• They want to help make things better

The P/PV project hopes to help fill these voids by providing communities with technical assistance and leveraging dollars to increase five core "vitamins" for youth: adult supports; positive activities in the nonschool hours; meaningful work and service experiences; opportunities to be involved in shaping their own environments; and support through transition periods (e.g., middle school to high school).

Equally important, the list above cries out for solutions. This is where definitions of youth participation become critical, for they determine the timing and extent of youth engagement in solving problems. Let's fast-forward two years to the future for a moment, and assume that the surveyed communities have put a range of responses in place: community policing, citizen patrols, extended-hours youth centers, apprenticeships, mentoring programs, school-based service, and a youth service corps, for example. Presumably, young people are the beneficiaries. But which initiatives did they suggest or help plan? how many did they advocate for? how many have youth volunteers or employees?

If the phrase "they [the youth] want to help" was interpreted narrowly by the adults in power, the answer is probably just a few. In this scenario, while youth participation is likely in many programs, youth will only volunteer or be hired in those programs that have youth service or employment as their goal. In contrast, if the phrase "they want to help" was interpreted broadly as "they want to help address each of the issues they raised," the answer could be quite different. Young people, suddenly, become "at the table" stakeholders in planning and implementing every response from community policing to mentoring. The numbers of youth involved--not just as participants, but as staff, planners, organizers, and volunteers--skyrockets when participation is seen as a principle rather than a program.

We must echo Barry Checkoway's warning:2

There is a tendency in the youth development field to accept all notions of youth participation and to embrace all forms of practice. Some of what passes today as "youth participation" actually may be a new form of agency service delivery in disguise.

Youth participation for youth development. Youth participation for community change. Different goals, different strategies; maybe even different proponents and funders. This isn't semantics: it's a critical distinction that I, for one, have been slow to grasp. It is a distinction that, if grabbed, will shape the way youth development ideas are marketed in the years ahead. It took a decade of work to move the idea that young people don't grow up in programs, they grow up in communities. Perhaps we can increase the learning curve for the next challenge--participation shouldn't occur just in programs, it should occur in communities.

The Next Definition Shift: From "Problem Youth" to "Problem Solvers"
While most would agree that there have been positive shifts during the last 40 years of youth policy, these changes have had some unexpected consequences. Slowly but surely, we have shifted focus and resources away from older, marginalized youth to elementary and middle-school youth who are "at risk" of, but not struggling with, the problems that caught the public's attention several decades ago. The younger age/lower risk group is where "smart investments" are now being made: investments that are seen as having a pay off in both problem-reduction and work force preparation. The rapid growth of federal and state funding for after-school programming (e.g., the 21st Centruy Schools program) is a testament to this. While these investments are clearly needed, many in the youth field feel that once again one age group--this time elemntary and middle schoolers--is being pitted against older, non-college-bound youth in the competition for public attention and public dollars.

There is reason to be concerned that the next 40 years will see a quiet reversal of progress for young people in the most vulnerable situations. While the idea of promoting the development of "fully prepared youth" will continue to take hold, it will be realized through strategies in policy-reinforced practice that reach young people earlier--with the expectation that they will thrive on relatively light but constant doses of support. Those who do not--those who are "on track" at age 8 but begin to slip at 12 and are clearly "off track" at 15--may not provided with the supports and opportunities they need to regain their position.

There is a real danger that the "early investment" push, combined with the lingering "fix then develop" mentality, will make it less likely that young people most in need of services and supports and opportunities will get them. As it becomes clear that not only is it the case that "problem-free isn't fully prepared" but that "fully prepared isn't fully participating"--it is possible that young people on the margins--especially those 15 and older--will remain there. Evidence is mounting that those who, at 16, have not connected with something--school, work, sports, activism--are at high risk of remaining "disconnected." Recent research reveals that older youth have less supports and opportunities than younger adolescents, and that the consequences of this disconnection are dire. The set of studies, spearheaded by Douglas Besharov at the American Enterprise Institute, concludes that young people who are disconnected during three or more transitional years between ages 17-23 are significantly more likely to end up poor, on welfare, in prison, or unemployed as adults.3

We will do a disservice to all young people if we do not find ways to create a public idea of youth as change agents: one that starts rather than concludes with the engagement of young people whose lives and communities are most in need of changing. The '90s brought us perilously close to promoting youth development strategies that fail to address the realities of those most in need. We cannot repeat this mistake as we promote youth participation.

Next Steps: Youth Engagement for Community Change as a Public Idea
Community youth development promises to be a powerful tool for transforming organizations that currently work with youth. The National Network for Youth has made enormous strides over the past few years in making this goal a reality through the articulation of good organizational practice. But there is a larger challenge: reaching those organizations and individuals who do not have youth problems or youth development as a priority. These audiences need a simpler and cleaner message about the power of youth participation for community improvement and community change.

Former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich talks about the power of public ideas--ideas that are promoted through public policy, implemented through mission-driven organizational practice, and rooted in individual beliefs and expectations. It seems almost impossible to achieve gains engaging young people as agents of change without making community youth development an idea that is well ingrained in the public consciousness. This lesson is brought home clearly when youth participation is viewed through an international lens.4

Connie Flanagan, a researcher at Penn State, has been conducting comparative research on adolescent views of the "social contract" with colleagues in seven countries. She underscores the importance of "collective responsibility," a concept embodied in two key youth institutions: family and school.

Youth who hear an ethic of social responsibility emphasized in their families are more likely than their compatriots to b engaged in some type of service to their communities. They are also more committed to public interest goals such as helping their country, preserving the environment, and assisting the less fortunate. Likewise, feelings of student solidarity and identification with the institution of the school are related to adolescents' civic commitments across countries, despite the fact that the school's role as a training ground for democracies is less developed in some countries than others.

Flanagan goes on to talk about the importance of broader public policies:

I've been struck by the extent to which national and state policies shape the contexts in which adolescents make decisions. Through minimum wage and child labor laws, the structure and funding of school systems, or subsidies for higher education, to name a few, the state's policies inform widespread beliefs about what are functional choices and normative behaviors for teens. In fact, such policies even define the boundaries of adolescence.

We will have to work carefully in this country to identify or create the public ideas that undergird a sustained effort to bring all young people into the civic, social, and economic arenas of their communities as lifelong learners, workers, and change agents. We must recognize that this public idea, like any stable platform, must have at least three legs: one leg in policy, one in public opinion and values, and a third in organizational practice. We could argue for the importance of a fourth leg in youth culture, for this idea must resonate with young people, tap into their resources, and unleash their potential.

Figure 2

The convergence of interest in youth participation creates a window of opportunity to promote quality and quantity of supports and opportunities for young people and adults to work together as effective citizens committed to social and community change (see figure 2). This opportunity could be wasted, however, if the expectations of those who can potentially fund, plan, implement, participate in, and evaluate these efforts are not raised significantly. To maximize impact, youth participation must be seen as:

• Critical to the immediate well-being of communities and institutions, not just the youth involved. There is a need to define and maintain a balance between individual development and civic or community change.
  
  
• Occurring everywhere, not just in separate youth-specific projects. There is a need to define youth participation as an integral part of community planning and problem solving rather than as a series of discrete, compartmentalized projects.
  
  
• Occurring in many forms--service, governance, advocacy, organizing.
  
  
• Involving learning and work, as opposed to uncompensated volunteering which is detached from career interests.
  
  
• The right and responsibility of all young people, not just those well positioned to "give back" because of income, education, or family background.

In pursuing this vision we need to find a balance between the rights and responsibilities of young people. Insights from conversations with young people and practitioners in other countries suggests that youth participation for community change is sometimes the easiest part of the equation. The hard part is ensuring that young people cannot only access resources and opportunities, but also become active in sharing and exercising power. Without this affirmation of basic rights for all young people, we are in danger of sponsoring another call to service, where young people are not full partners in their own development or that of their communities.

Karen Pittman is the Senior Vice President at the International Youth Foundation and the Executive Director of the International Youth Foundation-US. A sociologist and recognized leader in the youth development field in the U.S., Karen started her career at the Urban Institute before spending six years at the Children's Defense Fund.
In 1990, she left CDF to found the Center for Youth Development and Policy Research, which she directed until January 1995, when she stepped down to accept a position within the Clinton Administration as Director of the President's Crime Prevention Council. A widely published author, Karen has written three books and dozens of articles on youth issues; she is also a regular columnist and public speaker. During her career, she has sat on numerous boards and panels including the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Search Institute, and the Family Resource Coalition. Currently, she sits on the boards of the Educational Testing Service, American Youth Work Center, and is a member of the National Research Council's Forum on Adolescence.