Jodie L. Roth

Youth development programs: risk, prevention and policy

Adolescence is a time of both great risk and opportunity. Buoyed by a belief that today’s adolescents face more obstacles on the way to adulthood, from time-crunched parents, dangerous substances and behaviors, overburdened schools, and a more demanding job market, we as a nation no longer believe adolescents should fend for themselves during nonschool hours. In some communities, an array of school-based extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, music, art, community service) as well as community-based youth programs provide young people with ample choices for supervised activities outside of school. This is far from the norm. Availability, cost, transportation, and interest limit many youths’ choices during nonschool hours. In a recent opinion poll, 62% of 14to 17-year-olds agreed with the statement “Adults criticize teens for wasting time but adults don’t realize there’s not much for teens to do after school” [1]. Over half wished for more after-school activities in their neighborhood or community. Growing public support, both ideological and financial, for more structured activities during nonschool hours stems, in part, from the view that these activities and programs do more than fill idle time and keep youth off the streets. They also can provide youth with enriching experiences that broaden their perspectives, improve their socialization, and enhance their skills. A shift in thinking about what youth need for successful (productive) adulthood is behind recent efforts to increase the supply of afterschool activities, such as the federal government’s funding of 21st Century Learning Centers. Over the past 10 years, the youth development movement’s call for a paradigm shift from deterrence to development, captured by the phrase problem free is not fully prepared, has led to an increase in the acceptance of youth preparation and development, not just problem prevention and deterrence, as desirable goals requiring strategic action [2]. With the maturing of the youth development field, a consensus has emerged on the endpoints of positive (successful) youth development and the experiences and supports youths’ need to get there [3]. Generally speaking, positive youth development encompasses all our hopes and aspirations for a nation of healthy, happy, and competent adolescents on their way to productive and satisfying adulthoods [3]. Lerner et al. [4] summarize the ingredients of positive youth development into the five Cs: (a) competence in academic, social, and vocational areas; (b) confidence or a positive self-identity; (c) connections to community, family, and peers; (d) From the National Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York. Portions of this paper were presented at the Society for Adolescent Medicine meetings, as the Gallagher Lecture, March 1999, in Los Angeles, California. Address correspondence to: Jodie Roth, Ph.D., National Center for Children and Families, 525 West 120th Street, Box 39, New York, NY 10027. E-mail: jr328@columbia.edu. Manuscript accepted May 31, 2002. JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 2003;32:170–182

Does the neighborhood context alter the link between youth's after-school time activities and developmental outcomes? A multilevel analysis.

This article examines links between different measures of after-school time activity participation (5 specific activities and breadth) on youths developmental outcomes (anxiety/depression, delinquency, and substance use) over 6 years and whether these links are moderated by neighborhood-level variables. The sample (N=1,315) of 9- and 12-year-old youth was drawn from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), a multilevel, longitudinal study of youth from 80 Chicago neighborhoods. Findings revealed that different types of activities and patterns of participation over time were associated with outcomes for youth and that, to some extent, these outcomes varied with neighborhood characteristics. In brief, sports participation was associated with fewer anxious/depressed symptoms, higher average delinquency scores, and increased substance use-both average scores and growth over time. Participation in the arts and student government were negatively associated with average substance use and attenuated increases in usage over time. Participation in community-based clubs was positively associated with youths anxiety/depression in violent neighborhoods only, whereas church groups were protective against substance use in nonviolent neighborhoods. The direction of the influence of breadth of participation was nonlinear for delinquency such that delinquency scores were highest among youth who engaged in an average number of activities.

Patterns of adolescents' participation in organized activities: are sports best when combined with other activities?

Although many adolescents participate in sports and other types of organized activities, little extant research explores how youth development outcomes may vary for youth involved in different combinations of activities. The present study uses the Child Development Supplement of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a large, nationally representative sample, to compare activity patterns of adolescents ages 10-18 years (n = 1,711). A cluster analytic technique revealed 5 activity clusters: sports-focused, sports plus other activities, primarily school-based activities, primarily religious youth groups, and low activity involvement. Activity patterns were examined in conjunction with 5 categories of youth development outcomes, including competence (e.g., academic ability), confidence (e.g., self-concept of ability), connections (e.g., talking with friends), character (e.g., externalizing behavior problems), and caring (e.g., prosocial behavior). Results showed that those who participated only in sports had more positive outcomes compared with those who had little or no involvement in organized activities, but less positive outcomes compared with those who participated in sports plus other activities.

Adolescents' participation in organized activities and developmental success 2 and 8 years after high school: do sponsorship, duration, and intensity matter?

Using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study, the authors examined relations between educational, civic, and occupational success in young adulthood and the duration and intensity of participation in organized activities during high school. They also examined these relations as a function of sponsorship (i.e., school- vs. community-sponsored organized activities). They found that youths who participated in organized activities for 2 years demonstrated more favorable educational and civic outcomes in young adulthood than those who participated for 1 year. More intensive participation was also associated with greater educational, civic, and occupational success in young adulthood--particularly among youths who participated in activities for 2 years. Educational attainment often mediated the relations between temporal measures of participation and young adult civic and occupational outcomes. With the exception of analyses examining occupational success, findings varied little as a function of sponsorship. Of note, analyses revealed that both temporal measures of participation were positively associated with young adult outcomes as many as 8 years after high school.

Does the Amount of Participation in Afterschool Programs Relate to Developmental Outcomes? A Review of the Literature

Contrary to the findings from previous reviews we found little support for the general notion that greater amounts of participation in afterschool programs was related to academic, behavioral, or socio-emotional outcomes. However, some relationships did emerge depending on how participation was conceptualized and measured, and the methodology used to assess the relationship between participation and outcomes. For example, some benefits occurred when participants with high levels of participation were compared to non-participants, not when they were compared to other program participants. Several suggestions are offered to improve future research on the relationship between aspects of participation and developmental outcomes.

What Happens during the School Day? Time Diaries from a National Sample of Elementary School Teachers.

The education literature contains many studies of what happens in schools and classrooms, but no documentation of what actually happens to children during an entire school day in a nationally-representative sample of students in the US. This study presents data collected from a nationally-representative sample of teachers of first through fifth graders (N 5 553). Teachers completed a time diary, recording exact beginning and ending times for all the target student’s school activities for a randomly selected day. We examined students’ total time in school and their activities while there. We found wide variation in the length of the school day based on the student and classroom characteristics. Students attending school for the longest day were significantly more likely to be White and have fewer special needs, and to have smaller classes with a larger percentage of White students and a smaller percentage of students of other races than students attending for less time daily. We grouped students’ activities at school into four categories that accounted for all but 9 minutes of the school day: academic, enrichment, recess, and maintenance activities. We found variations in how students spent their time based on student, family, and classroom characteristics. Teachers of African American students reported spending more time on academic subjects, and less time on enrichment and recess activities than teachers of white students. The same pattern emerged for teachers of more advantaged students, and classrooms with a larger percentage of White students. Results are discussed in terms of school reform efforts and inequality issues.

Evaluating Youth Development Programs: Progress and Promise.

ABSTRACT Advances in theories of adolescent development and positive youth development have greatly increased our understanding of how programs and practices with adolescents can impede or enhance their development. In this article the authors reflect on the progress in research on youth development programs in the last two decades, since possibly the first review of empirical evaluations by Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray, and Foster (1998). The authors use the terms Version 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 to refer to changes in youth development research and programs over time. They argue that advances in theory and descriptive accounts of youth development programs (Version 2.0) need to be coupled with progress in definitions of youth development programs, measurement of inputs and outputs that incorporate an understanding of programs as contexts for development, and stronger design and evaluation of programs (Version 3.0). The authors also advocate for an integration of prevention and promotion research, and for use of the term youth development rather than positive youth development.

Invited commentary: Promotion and prevention in youth development: two sides of the same coin?

This commentary uses the contributions of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development as a chance to reflect on the progress of the past two decades and suggest important tasks for the future. Meaningful advances in theory now set the stage for needed work on measurement, evaluation, and understanding of contextual processes. The commentary ends with a plea for an integration of the research and programmatic approaches of promotion and prevention in order to study youth development and implement youth programs.

Academic Success, Adolescence

Adolescents’ academic pursuits center on school. Their connections to school, motivation to achieve, course selection, and acquired knowledge and skills create a foundation for the future. Admission to higher education, and increasingly, jobs in the workplace, require a high school diploma. Graduation from high school, the most widely used measure of academic success during adolescence, signifies students’ satisfactory completion of a set of required courses, and increasingly, passing scores on state proficiency tests. And with it, the assumption that students possess the reading, writing, and mathematical skills necessary for further schooling or entry-level jobs.