| VARIABLE |
BRAZIL:
Level and Effect |
U.S.:
Level and Effect |
RYSE: Efforts to adjust model to U.S. |
| Level of poverty and neglect |
Severe. Motivates
youth organization in the struggle for their rights. |
Less severe. Youth
perceive less necessity for action due to lack of history in youth rights movement. |
Acknowledges the difference
between models; aware of work to be done in U.S. |
| Level of formal education |
Low. Makes training
and opportunities for decision making time consuming. |
High. Enables rapid
engagement in concientizagao.* |
Takes advantage of higher
education level when working with U.S. youth. |
| Cultural & Social integration |
Less. Easier to unite
all youth around their rights. |
More. Makes it difficult
to unite across the barriers. |
Staff are intentionally
recruited to represent diversity of peoples and traditions in U.S. |
| Existence of national youth policy
and legislation |
Exists among the world leaders.
Service suppliers and children's rights advocates have visible proactive position
and provide an over-arching mission. |
Lacks national policy and
substantive legislation. Service workers and youth advocates less visible and play
more reactive role; inhibits growth of over-arching mission. |
Sees the value in the Brazil
model as a means for gaining national policy and underrepresented U.S. youth. |
| Funding promoting unified approaches |
Unified big picture approach
based on ECA. - Greater collaboration, broader and deeper sense of national mission. |
Lacks big picture approach.
Funding based largely on individual programs; programs are competitive and isolated. |
1.Works as catalyst among
youth serving organizations and resources.
2.Invites people to participate as individuals rather than representatives of organizations.
3.Creates venues within which redefine youth empowerment and develop new methodologies. |
