ARIZONA COOP E R AT I V E
E TENSION
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
AZ1403f
04/07
IDENTIFYING HIGH QUALITY YOUTH PROGRAMS
Information for Middle School Youth Professionals
Tessman, Stuart, Lauxman, Waits, Borden, Strickland, Norquest & Stone
The University of Arizona
Overview
The purpose of this fact sheet is to inform Youth
Development Professionals on research findings regarding
important features of successful youth programs. The goal
is to offer individuals who work with youth in grades 6-8
guidelines for identifying high quality programs.
Topic/Text
Studies repeatedly find that participating in well-run,
quality youth programs is beneficial for young people
(Redd, Cochran, Hair, & Moore, 2002; Villarruel, Perkins,
Borden, & Keith, 2003). The National Research Council
(Eccles & Gootman, 2002) provides a framework describing
eight features of positive youth development settings. The
following is a summary of research recommendations and
findings for youth professionals to consider when planning,
designing, and evaluating a quality youth program for
middle school youth.
Physical and Psychological Safety
Youth participate in diverse out-of-school programs to have
fun with friends and learn new skills. These activities may
be diverse and include sports, creative arts, and community
service (Lauver, Little, & Weiss, 2004). For youth to benefit
from their participation, these activities should take place in
a location that is safe and inviting. To improve the quality
of time spent in out-of-school activities, program settings
should ensure that youth are safe from threat of violence,
harassment or harm (Eccles & Gootman, 2002).
Appropriate Structure
Youth feel secure when there are clear rules and guidelines
for behavior. While middle school youth need to explore
their identity to figure out who they are, they still need
supervision and limits. Adolescents with less supervision
are more likely to participate in dangerous behavior due to
peer pressure (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Many youth
prefer to join structured activities when they are available
(Hall, Israel, and Shortt, 2004).
Supportive Relationships
Youth believe they are a part of a high quality program
when adults consistently demonstrate their concern and
support for them (Duffett, Johnson, Farkas, Kung, & Ott,
2004). Youth benefit from positive role models outside of
their family (Miller, 2003). Successful youth programs are
staffed by adults who are creative, well trained, and are able
to build long-term relationships with youth participants
(Hall, et al., 2004).
Opportunities to Belong
When youth experience a sense of belonging, they behave
more responsibly. They feel more confident and have a
better attitude toward school (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). It
is important that youth feel that they are valued both as an
individual and as part of a group. Quality programs provide
youth with activities that offer a chance for recognition by
friends, family, and community.
Positive Social Norms
In high quality programs, caring adults work with youth
to set positive guidelines for behavior. Youth who join a
team or club experience more positive outcomes than those
who have a lot of time to themselves after school (Duffett,
et al., 2004). Young people benefit from the chance to
explore different life situations, viewpoints, and cultures.
It is especially helpful to be around other youth who have
positive goals (Miller, 2003). Research connects boredom and
problem behavior (Duffett et al., 2004). Thus, participation
in youth programs reduces juvenile crime and violence by
offering youth a positive alternative for out-of-school hours
(Hall, et al., 2004).
Support for Efficacy and Mattering
In high quality youth programs, young people are
encouraged to better themselves and their communities
(Miller, 2003). In such programs, youth and adults share
8 Features of Positive Youth Development Settings
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical and Psychological Safety
Appropriate Structure
Supportive Relationships
Opportunities to Belong
Positive Social Norms
Support for Efficacy and Mattering
Opportunities for Skill Building
Integration of Family, School, and Community Efforts
leadership, with young people given the chance to lead
when they are ready. Youth input should matter and help
to drive the program’s goals and activities. Quality youth
programs provide youth an opportunity to be included
in decision-making (Hall, et al., 2004). Quality youth
programs recognize the diversity of youth participants
and accommodate the interests and values of youth from
different cultures. Youth want to learn important skills and
to know that their time is worthwhile. Program activities
can be academic, artistic, or community service-based.
Opportunities for Skill Building
Youth programs provide opportunities to develop life skills
such as teamwork, problem solving, and communication
(Miller, 2003). Successful programs provide challenging and
age appropriate activities. Younger adolescents begin with
pre-apprenticeships that combine hands-on and academic
enrichment activities. Later, they transition to supervised
internships that focus on learning skills and producing a
product (Hall, et al., 2004).
Integration of Family, School, and
Community Efforts
Young people stay involved when connected with peers,
family, school, and community. For example, studies show
that:
• Youth do better in school when parents are involved
(Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000).
• When parents are involved in a program, youth
are more likely to be involved themselves (Weiss &
Brigham, 2003).
• Community-based programs that are connected to
the schools increase student learning and success
(Epstein, 2001).
Quality youth programs facilitate positive youth outcomes
by integrating the settings of daily life. This integration
improves the overall level of support youth receive.
References
Duffett, A., Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Kung, S., & Ott, A. (2004).
All work and no play? Listening to what kids really want
from out-of-school time. Retrieved from the Public Agenda
Web site3/30/06
http://www.publicagenda.org/research/research-/
reports
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to
promote youth development. Washington, DC: Committee
on Community-Level Programs for Youth. Board on
Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral
and Social Sciences Education, National Research Council
and Institute of Medicine.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships:
Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Hall, G., Israel, L., & Shortt, J. (2004). It’s about time! A look
at out of school time for urban teens. Wellesley, MA: The
National Institute on Out-of-School Time.
Lauver, S., Little, P., & Weiss. (2004, July). Moving beyond the
barriers: Attracting and sustaining youth participation in
Out-of-School Time Programs (No. 6). Cambride, MA:
Harvard Family Research Project.
Miller, B. M. (2003). Afterschool programs and educational
success. Critical hours: Executive summary. Quincy, MA:
Nellie Mae Education Foundation.
Redd, Z., Cochran, S., Hair, E., & Moore, K. (2002). Academic
achievement programs and youth development: A
synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends
Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J., & Resch, N. (2000). Agents of change:
Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence
adolescents’ academic adjustment. Child Development,
71, 1662-1671.
Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). What Do Adolescents Need
for Healthy Development? Implications for Youth Policy.
Social Policy Report, 14, 1.
Villarruel, F. A., Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., & Keith, J. G.
(2003). Community youth development: Practice, Policy,
and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weiss, A. R., & Brigham, R. A. (2003). The family participation
in after-school study. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive
Education. Available at www.responsiveeducation.org/
current.html#After-school
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721
DARCY TESSMAN
Associate Extension Agent
MARTA ELVA STUART
Associate Extension Agent
LISA LAUXMAN
Extension Acting Assistant Director
JUANITA O’CAMPO WAITS
Extension Area Agent
LYNNE BORDEN
Extension Specialist, Associate Professor
BRENT STRICKLAND
Associate Extension Agent
JAN NORQUEST
Area Associate Extension Agent
MARGARET STONE
Research Associate
This information has been reviewed by university faculty.
cals.arizona.edu/pubs/family/az1403f.pdf
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
James A. Christenson, Director, Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, The University of Arizona.
The University of Arizona is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution. The University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or sexual orientation in its programs and activities.
2
The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension