empowering youth to change their world: identifying key components of a community service program to...

Journal of School Psychology
44 (2006) 513–531
Empowering youth to change their world: Identifyingkey components of a community service program to

promote positive development

Rebecca Lakin ⁎, Annette Mahoney

Bowling Green State University, Psychology Building, Bowling Green, OH 43403, United States

Received 7 October 2005; received in revised form 15 May 2006; accepted 2 June 2006

Abstract

Prior to graduating from high school, the vast majority of youth in the United States will take part inat least one community service activity. Although it is frequently assumed that community service isinherently beneficial to those that take part, the activities and processes of youth service programs tendto be unsystematic and vary widely. In addition, empirical assessment of youth service programs isinconsistent and often lacks methodological rigor. The present paper addresses these concerns in apreliminary evaluation of both the process experience and the outcomes of a theoretically groundedschool-based community service program for urban adolescents. The evaluation focuses on identifyingkey components of a youth community service program, assessing whether the program wasexperienced as it was intended, and providing preliminary data on participant outcomes. Findingsindicate that the program was experienced as both empowering (i.e., guided by student initiative,preferences, and strengths) and promoting a sense of community (i.e., encouraged cooperation andcollective decision making). Results also suggest that taking part in the community service programincreased youths' self-reported empathy and intent to be involved in future community action, ascompared to a group of matched controls. Implications and recommendations for developing andevaluating service-learning or community service programs in the schools are discussed.© 2006 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adolescent development; Community service; School-based intervention; Program development;Empowerment; Sense of community

⁎ Corresponding author. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535 Market Street, #1476, Philadelphia, PA19104, United States. Tel.: +1 215 590 4024; fax: +1 267 426 7153.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Lakin), [email protected] (A. Mahoney).

0022-4405/$ - see front matter © 2006 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.06.001

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.06.001

514 R. Lakin, A. Mahoney / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 513–531

Introduction

In the past two decades, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to encourage youthcommunity service in the United States (Corporation for National and Community Service,2006a; Kennedy, 1991). Indeed, numerous foundations have been established to promote thedevelopment of programs for a wide age range (e.g., Need In Deed, Youth Service America,National Youth Leadership Council, Learn and Service America, Learning in Deed and TheEducationCommission of the States (2001)) andmost states include community service in theireducational standards and goals, make it a graduation requirement, or provide funding andresources for school-based service programs (The Education Commission of the States, 2001).It is therefore not surprising that 64% of all public schools report that they recognize or organizecommunity service activities for their students (U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Educational Statistics, 2000) and close to eleven million youth ages 12 to 18 say they haveengaged in community service as a school activity or requirement (Corporation forNational andCommunity Service, 2006b). Further, a third of high school students report taking part incommunity service on a regular basis (Youniss et al., 2002). These statistics – in conjunctionwith the plethora of websites, training guides, and other related resources available – reflectwhat has become a national ethic of youth service in the United States.

Reviews of youth service activities (e.g., Billig, 2000, 2006; Blyth, Saito, & Berkas, 1997;Conrad & Hedin, 1991; Shumer, 1997, 2005; Yates & Youniss, 1996a), assessment of specificprograms (e.g., Allen, Kuperminc, Philliber, & Herre, 1994; Sandler, Vandegrift, &VerBrugghen, 1995; Verlande, Starling, & Wallerstein, 2002; Yates & Youniss, 1996b, 1998;Youniss & Yates, 1999), and multi-site program evaluations (e.g., Billig, Root, & Jesse, 2005;Corporation for National and Community Service, 1999) suggest that involvement incommunity service is related to healthy outcomes acrossmultiple realms. Thus, the literature onyouth community service activities indicates that adolescents who are actively involved in theircommunity have a stronger self-image (e.g., greater self-esteem and self-efficacy) and valuethemselvesmore highly than adolescentswho do not take part (Conrad&Hedin, 1991; Shumer,1997, 2005). Young participants in community service programs have also reported improvedinterpersonal relationships and skills, such as social relatedness, prosocial attitudes andbehaviors, sense of community, empathy, nurturance and altruism (Yates & Youniss, 1996a).

Limitations of past studies

Although the available literature on youth service programs suggests positive effects forinvolved youth, these findings are tempered by limitations in program design and researchmethodology (Metz & Youniss, 2005). Specifically, deficits in two key areas impede ourunderstanding of the processes and outcomes of successful youth service activities: (1)many community service programs still do not include a controlled evaluation componentand (2) the design of youth service programs is often unsystematic and varies widely acrossfacilitators, settings, and time.

Methodological limitationsInitially, the benefit of youth service was often supported by anecdotal evidence alone

(e.g., Lynch, Condon, Newell, & Regan, 1990; Patchin, 1994). Of those programs that did

515R. Lakin, A. Mahoney / Journal of School Psychology 44 (2006) 513–531

include a formal evaluation component, many were incomplete in their assessment (Serow,1997; Shumer, 1997). For example, program evaluations were conducted only at post-intervention (Blyth et al., 1997) or programs that included both a pre and post-interventionevaluation did not compare participant changes to a matched control group (e.g., Yates &Youniss, 1996b; Youniss & Yates, 1999). Recently, the need to garner local, state, andfederal support for youth community service activities has propelled efforts to conductsystematic, controlled evaluations of community service and service learning programs(Duckenfield & Drew, 2006). While findings from this new wave of research underscorethe advantages of youth service activities, they also suggest that youth engagement incommunity service is not inherently beneficial. Rather, positive participant outcomesappear to depend on upon how the service activity is presented and carried out (Billig,2004). For example, Billig et al. (2005) found that factors such as program duration,perceived quality, and student initiative had differential effects on outcomes for youthengaged in service learning.

Design limitationsThe finding that specific components and procedures of service programs determine the

impact on participating youth is consistent with the fact that interventions developed from asound theoretical basis have historically produced the most consistent and measurableoutcomes (e.g., Allen et al., 1994; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2003). Unfortunately, a largenumber of youth community service programs continue to be conducted under theassumption that service activity is beneficial in and of itself, regardless of the process bywhich it is undertaken. Maximizing positive effects, however, requires that these programsbe designed in a manner consistent with established developmental theory, rather thanimplemented indiscriminately (McLellan & Youniss, 2003).

Assessment of program processesIn addition to establishing program content and procedures based upon developmental

theory and conducting methodologically sound program evaluation, the relationshipbetween theory and program outcomes should be further illustrated through assessment ofthe mechanisms by which program activities effect positive change. Thus, Kazdin andKendall (1998) emphasized that the “clinical impact of treatment will derive not only fromoutcome studies, but also from understanding the processes through which treatmentworks” (p. 221). It follows that research on youth community service programs wouldbenefit from assessment of key process variables theoretically linked to positiveintervention effects.

The present study

The present study attempts to fill gaps in the literature on youth service through theevaluation of the processes and outcomes of a community service program included as partof the academic curriculum for 6th grade students enrolled at an urban elementary school.Specifically, this study was designed to illuminate each step in the program design,implementation, and evaluation process, illustrated in Fig. 1. First, emphasis was placed onusing established developmental theory to guide program activities and procedures (Step

Fig. 1. Model of youth service program and desired outcome.


1). Second, program processes were assessed with qualitative and quantitative data fromparticipants following program completion (Step 2). Third, pre- and post-interventionevaluation across several outcome variables for both intervention participants and a groupof matched controls was used to establish preliminary findings on program effects (Step 3)as well as the relation between program processes and outcomes (Step 4). Overall, theevaluation was intended to identify key components of effective youth community serviceactivities by providing information on the extent to which a theoretically grounded youthservice program affected participants' positive development (i.e., program outcomes), andexploring the mechanisms of change (i.e., program processes).

Theoretical basisHistorically, adolescence has been considered a time of significant challenge and change

(Erikson, 1968). During this time, greater independence from parents and an increase in peerinfluence combined with changes in physical, educational, social and psychological realms putpre-teen and teenage youth at risk for a number of difficulties. However, this period of increasedvulnerability is also a time of “maximal opportunity” wherein adolescents have the chance tobegin to develop a positive self-identity and orientation toward others (Finkenauer, Engels,Meeus, & Oosterwegel, 2002). Doing this, however, requires that youth successfully integratetheir increased need for autonomy with their seemingly contradictory drive for affiliation andacceptance (Clements and Seidman, 2002; Finkenauer et al., 2002). Roeser and Lau (2002)equated these contrasting needs to the struggle for a jazz musician to blend his or her individualsolo with the collective voice of the band — both necessary for a strong performance. Thus,optimal adolescent development requires that youth be in an environment that fosters bothautonomy and relatedness.

Program processesConsistent with the understanding of adolescent developmental needs described

above, the format and activities in the present program were designed to foster twoimportant factors in positive adolescent development: enhancement of personal goalsand directedness and development of strong interpersonal relationships (Allen et al.,


1994; Finkenauer et al., 2002; Wade, 1997; Yates & Youniss, 1996a). Communitypsychologists identify these two constructs as empowerment and sense of community.Empowerment occurs when individuals, communities or organizations gain masteryover their lives (Zimmerman, 1995, 2000; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Sense ofcommunity is obtained when an individual feels a sense of belonging and influence in agroup, feels that his or her needs are met by the group, and feels that she or he shares anemotional connection with the group (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986).Thus, the present program was based on the premise that youth who successfullycultivate both empowerment and a sense of community (program processes) are morelikely to develop skills necessary to becoming healthy, productive adults (programoutcomes).

Program outcomesTo determine whether a program promoting empowerment and sense of community

facilitates positive adolescent developmental outcomes, the present study includedevaluation of key outcome variables conceptually linked to empowerment throughcommunity service. Thus, taking part in the program was expected to impact factors relatedto participants' development of their sense of self as well as their orientation toward others.Specifically, it was predicted that youth who engaged in the empowering intervention weremore likely to have enhanced self-efficacy, and that the emphasis on community andcollaboration would positively impact prosocial attitudes. Prosocial attitudes wereoperationalized in this study as empathy, responsibility toward others, and intent to beinvolved in future community action. This is consistent with Penner and Finkelstein's(1998) definition of the prosocial personality as “an enduring tendency to think about thewelfare and rights of other people, to feel concern and empathy for them, and to act in a waythat benefits them.”

Program components

Program components were divided into three phases (skill building, planning, andaction; see Table 1), with each directed toward the goal of conducting community service inthe context of promoting empowerment and sense of community. The skill-building phaseincluded six 50-min sessions exploring the concepts of social action, cooperation,leadership, and empathy. The planning phase consisted of six sessions where participantschose a social problem or need they wished to address, researched the issue, and developeda plan of action. Finally, the action phase involved eight sessions where participantsplanned and/or carried out the service activity.

Promoting empowermentSimilar to many school-based community service activities, the present program was

part of the academic curriculum, and therefore mandatory. Yet some research suggests thatrequired community service might have less of an impact on youth outcomes (e.g., futurecommunity involvement) than service done on a voluntary basis (National Center forEducation Statistics, 2000). To counteract the challenge to empowerment that can occurwhen participation is required, the present program emphasized youth responsibility and

Table 1Session content, target process variables, goals, and activities

Sessions Target processvariable

Goal Activities

Skill-building phaseSession

1Empowerment Introduce participants to social

action and community service–Foster interest and understanding ofrole of youth as agents of social change–Explore and address common barriersto community participation

Session2

Sense ofCommunity

Explore process of workingtogether for a common cause

–Discuss democracy and cooperation–Define rights and responsibilities ofgroup members

Sessions3–4

Empowerment Discuss leadershipand “followership”

–Demonstrate benefits of both leadingand following–Examine role of personal choice, skill,and interest in choosing role–List characteristics of a good leader

Sessions5–6

Sense ofCommunity

Explore the concept of empathy –Demonstrate the importance of empathy–Enhance awareness of others'situations, experiences, and feelings–Practice recognizing others' feelings

Planning phaseSessions

7–8Empowerment andsense of community

Choose a cause the groupwould like to do something about

–Explore the environment–Identify social problems or needs–Collectively choose one cause

Sessions9–10

Empowerment andsense of community

Research the chosen cause –Work in groups to conduct research–Present findings from researchto classmates

Sessions11–12


Develop an action plan –Brainstorm ways to address the cause–Collectively choose course of action–Plan course of action and assign roles

Implementation phaseSessions

13–20Empowerment andsense of community

Implement the action plan –Follow through with action plan–Work together to solve problemsas they arise

Session21


Group discussion ofentire process

-Explore personal and collective impactof service activity


ownership of the service project. Thus, the compulsory nature of the program made itparticularly important to ensure that participants felt a sense of control in theconceptualization and execution of the service activity, and that the control was actualand not just perceived (Riger, 1993). One way this was done was by having youthparticipants serve as the primary decision makers in all aspects of the program. To supportstudent success in this role, adult facilitators focused on providing structure and assistancewhen needed, factors identified as key to empowering youth interventions (Larson, Walker,& Pierce, 2005). Several strategies were used to facilitate success in the context of youthownership, including posing guiding questions (e.g., about problem solving steps),


providing intermediate structure when needed (e.g., setting agendas), and monitoringprogress.

Promoting sense of communityThe program addressed the need for balance between individual and community needs

by relying on a democratic decision-making process wherein group members workedtogether to develop and meet common goals (Eyler & Giles, 1997; Perkins, 1995; Riger,1993). Collective action was further emphasized by having group members participate inseveral sessions where they explored and discussed the importance of both leadership and“followership” (Lewis, 1998) as well as the role of empathy in problem solving. In addition,students were encouraged to identify and utilize their individual strengths to promote groupgoals. For example, participants frequently established committees based upon skills orinterests.

The need for reflectionIn order for youth to effectively integrate the skills, strategies and attributes targeted

in the program into their self-identity, it was important to have a strong and ongoingreflection component (Conrad & Hedin, 1991; Eyler & Giles, 1997; Nathan &Kielsmeier, 1991; Shumer, 1997; Waterman, 1997). Indeed, Blyth et al. (1997) notedthat implementing a service program without reflection might even be detrimental, as itis imperative that the youths' experiences be placed in a larger context. To address thisneed, regular written and/or verbal reflection activities were included throughout theprogram.

Focusing on younger adolescentsIn their review of youth volunteering and civic engagement across the United

States, the Corporation for National and Community Service (2006a,2006b) found thatolder adolescents are 30% more likely to participate in school-based service than theiryounger counterparts. Yet research suggests that community service programs mightactually have a stronger effect on the positive development of younger adolescents. Forexample, Allen et al. (1994) found that the amount of autonomy and relatednesspromoted by the Teen Outreach Program predicted lower levels of problem behavior atexit (per student and facilitator ratings) for middle school, but not high school-ageyouth. The greater effect of autonomy and relatedness for younger students suggeststhat early middle school might be a crucial time in adolescent development: by highschool, youth may have already resolved these issues for themselves and wouldtherefore be less impacted by a program designed to promote such development. Theimplementation of the present program with 10- to 13-year-old youth is consistent withthe theory that such programs may best meet the developmental needs of earlyadolescence.

The potential benefit for at-risk youthThe urgent need to promote positive development in at-risk populations was

addressed in the present study by employing the program in a multi-racial, highpoverty, urban elementary school with a significant rate of aggressive behavior. Indeed,


past findings suggest that there may be an increased benefit for doing so (Sandler etal., 1995; Verlande et al., 2002). For example, Blyth et al. (1997) found that childrenreporting more risk taking at pretest also reported being more interested and positivelyaffected by their involvement in the service project at posttest. Interviews withprominent, high achieving African American and European American women have alsorevealed that a strong sense of a global or collective identity was crucial to overcomingthe barriers faced by a disadvantaged population (Richie et al., 1997). Thus, promotinga strong sense of community may be particularly important in oppressed populations(e.g., minorities, the urban poor) or with behaviorally at-risk children.

Methods

Research design

The present study evaluates the impact of a community service programimplemented with sixth grade students at an urban elementary school. Each of thethree sixth grade classes at the school was assigned on a classroom-wide basis toeither the treatment or control condition through a random drawing during the firstweek of classes. Specifically, two classes were randomly assigned to the treatmentcondition and one class was randomly assigned to the control condition. Followingrandom assignment, the program was implemented separately – but concurrently – foreach of the two classes chosen for the intervention. The process experience of thestudents from the two classes that took part in the intervention was assessed with aquantitative measure administered to program participants at posttest as well asqualitative feedback obtained from participants in a classroom discussion followingcompletion of the youth service project. In addition, all three classes (two interventionand one control) completed assessment surveys prior to the program implementationand following program completion in order to provide preliminary information onprogram effects.

Participants

Although the principal required all sixth grade students in the two interventionclassrooms to take part in the program, only survey data from students whose parentsprovided written consent was used for research purposes. Written assent to use surveyinformation was also obtained from the students themselves, with the understandingthat not providing consent would not affect their academic or group status. Of the 40treatment group and 20 control group members, 73% (n=29) of the programparticipants and 70% (n=14) of the control group members provided permission fortheir survey data to be used for this study. An independent sample t-test indicated thatthe 27% (n=11) and 30% (n=6) of students in the intervention and control groups,respectively, who did not provide permission to be included in the program evaluationwere not significantly different from those who did provide permission in terms of age.Chi-squared tests of gender and racial composition indicated that the two groups alsodid not differ significantly on these demographic factors.


Demographics

An independent sample t-test indicated that program participants were not significantlydifferent from the control group in terms of age (range: 10–13 years old). Chi-squared testsfound that program participants did not differ significantly from the control group in termsof gender (72% and 50% female in treatment and control group, respectively), and race/ethnicity (38% of the treatment and 43% of the controls were European–American; 28% ofthe treatment and 29% of the control group were bi-racial; 21% of both the treatment andcontrol groups were African–American; 10% of the treatment and 7% of the control groupwere Hispanic; and 3% of the treatment group were not into any of the above categories).Finally, youth from both groups were representative of the general student body in terms ofsocioeconomic status, i.e., students in both the intervention and control group werepredominantly living in poverty, as evidenced by the school wide statistic that over 90% ofstudents received subsidized or free student lunches.

Measures

As described above, program evaluation included both quantitative and qualitativeassessment of the process experience of intervention group members as well as quantitativemeasures of outcome variables for both treatment and control group members. Of thosewho provided permission for their survey data to be used, only one student in the treatmentgroup and one in the control group did not complete all of the included measures. Surveydata from these two subjects was dropped for the measure(s) that were incomplete.1

Process experiences of intervention group

Ongoing feedback from participants during the intervention, an open-ended discussionfollowing program completion, and a post-intervention survey administered to the treatmentgroup at posttest were used to assess whether the programmet its goal of being an empoweringprocess that allowed participants to connect with their community and each other.

Program processes were quantitatively assessed with a modified version of the LearnerEmpowerment Measure (Bainbridge-Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996). Originallydesigned to assess college students' perceptions of empowerment in the classroom,questions addressed whether participants in the group felt that the project was consistentwith the their values, beliefs, talents, and choices. Past studies utilizing the original measurewith college students demonstrated high reliability and construct validity (Bainbridge-Frymier et al., 1996). Wording of the items was adapted to fit the present program and beappropriate for this age group. In addition to the original 25 items, three questions wereadded to evaluate whether the program was a unique opportunity for the participants to bein charge of something important, and whether participants felt that the group furthered

1 In terms of item-level data, the following system was used when information was missing or incomplete: ifresponses were in Likert format and two or less items were missing from the measure, the average of completeditems was used to replace these items. If responses were in dichotomous format, missing data was replaced withthe mean off the potential responses. Across all items for all subjects, only 12 and 9 items in the treatment andcontrol groups, respectively, were replaced using the above methods.


their understanding and involvement in social action. Finally, two questions assessedwhether the service program helped participants to connect with their classmates and thebroader community. A test of internal reliability for this newly adapted process measurefound an alpha coefficient of .90.

Further information on participants' program experience was obtained from a 30-mingroup reflection session conducted with each intervention group at posttest. During thissession, the majority of students voluntarily spoke of their feelings about the program in anopen-ended format. Transcripts of the session were used to provide qualitative informationabout program processes.

Outcome assessmentTo assess whether the program succeeded in promoting key aspects of positive

development, participants in the intervention and control groups completed pre-. and post-intervention surveys measuring self-efficacy, sense of responsibility, intent to be involvedin future community action and empathy. Preliminary analyses revealed that none of thedependent variables correlated greater than r=.51, thereby establishing that they weresufficiently distinct (see Table 2 for correlations between dependent variables at Time 1)Accordingly, separate analyses were conducted for each variable.

Global self-efficacy was assessed with 19 items from Cowen et al.'s (1991) self-efficacyscale. This scale assesses children's feelings that they will be able to successfully managechallenges in three areas of living: difficult situations, new experiences, and problems withpeople. For example, questions ask how sure the youth is that things will work out well forhim or her when they have to work out a problem with a teacher, or when she or he has toget something done under pressure. This scale has demonstrated sufficient internalreliability and has been found to significantly correlate with multiple child outcomesincluding school adjustment, mental health, behavior problems, and relationships withpeers (Cowen et al., 1991; Hoeltje, Zubrick, & Garton, 1996). Internal reliability for thepresent study was high (α= .87).

Civic responsibility involves placing a high value on the well being of other people. Fiveitems were created for this study to assess this construct. The first three questions wereadapted from those used by Mesch (2001) and asked about how important it was to helpothers, understand others, and contribute to society (internal reliability fromMesch's study:α=.75). Two additional questions were added to assess how important respondents feel thattheir actions and those of others are to the future of their neighborhood and the world.Because this five-item measure was created for the present study, it did not have establishedvalidity or reliability data. However, a test of internal reliability using the present data foundthat the five items had high internal reliability (α=.83).

Table 2Correlation between dependent variables at time 1

Self-efficacy Intent to be involved Sense of responsibility Empathy

Self-efficacy –Intent to be involved .51 –Sense of responsibility .20 .05 –Empathy .13 .13 .34 –


Intent to be involved in future community action was assessed with three questionscreated for this study that asked respondents how certain they were that they would beinvolved in their community when they became adults. A test of internal reliability for thepresent study found an alpha coefficient of .72.

Empathy was assessed with eighteen items from the Index of Empathy for Children andAdolescents (Bryant, 1982). On this index, participants were asked to agree or disagreewith statements such as “it makes me sad to see someone who can't find anyone to playwith” and “it's hard for me to see why someone else gets upset.” This index is based on awell known and widely used empathy scale for adults (Mehrabian and Epstein, 1972). Theyouth and adult versions have been used and validated around the world. A test of internalreliability for the present study found an alpha coefficient of .72.

Results

Description of service projects

As noted above, program participants collectively chose – through group brainstormingfollowed by voting – what social issue they wished to address and how they wished toaddress it. One group chose to focus on animal abuse and neglect by raising money for thelocal Humane Society. Along with conducting internet and library research, small groups ofstudents visited the Humane Society after school where they talked with staff and visited withthe animals. The class then spent several weeks making various crafts (e.g., door hangers withpro-animal messages and picture frames) and selling them during their lunch hour.Ultimately, they raised approximately four hundred dollars for the Humane Society. Thesecond group of students chose to focus on child abuse for their project. After researching theissue, the class designed a workshop where they taught younger students about what childabuse is, how many children it affects, what the effects are, and what can be done about it.Ultimately, the group gave presentations to each of the 3rd and 4th grade classes at theirschool and also sponsored an “anti-child abuse” poster contest where the workshopparticipants were given prizes for the best “advertisements against child abuse.” Followingthe completion of the projects, both classes were given plaques at a school assembly honoringtheir contributions. A local newspaper and television station covered the event.

Because of the diverse nature of the projects chosen by the two treatment groups,exploratory analyses were conducted to determine if there were significant differences inprocess or outcome variables based on group status (i.e., whether they were in the animalabuse/neglect or child abuse group). No differences were found, indicating that significantprogram effects were not driven by characteristics of one of the treatment groups. Data fromboth treatment groups were combined in all subsequent analyses.

Process experiences of intervention group

The primary goal of this study was to determine if the program effectively created theintended group atmosphere for the intervention participants. As noted above, the programwas designed to be (1) experienced as empowering by participants and (2) an opportunityfor participants to connect with others. Results from the quantitative measure asking


participants about the program experience suggested that the program was successfullyexperienced as empowering and promoting a sense of community. Thus, participantsreported that the activities in the community service program reflected their personalvalues, choices and talents, and was a unique opportunity to explore solving communityproblems through collaborating and connections with their classmates and community(mean=54 out of a possible 60).2

Qualitative data obtained from participants in post-intervention class interviewsfollowing program completion were consistent with the quantitative finding that theprogram was experienced as empowering and promoting a sense of community. Inparticular, two themes emerged from the interviews. First, participants indicated that theprogram was a unique and exciting opportunity for them to prove to both themselves andothers that they could accomplish something important. One student who had worked withher class to research, write, and present workshops on child abuse for 3rd and 4th gradestudents noted: “None of us thought we could do it. Like, I never thought I could. I thought,we can't go tell the whole wide world that you can't [abuse children], that child abuse isagainst the law.” Her classmates concurred, stating, “I thought we would never make adifference or anything” and “I was proud when people thought the sixth grade couldn't doanything important in society, but we did.” Still others identified the program as the firststep toward a future of community involvement: “It was really good [to see] how this can besomething I can do to be known in my neighborhood and country when I get grown up.”Indeed, several participants expressed a desire to continue, both for their own sake and as arole model to others. As one student put it, “Now that we have done this and let everyoneelse know…now that we know this stuff, when we have kids we can tell our kids about itand they can probably try to do something…try to be like their mom and dad.”

The second common theme of the post-intervention discussions was the students'perception that choosing and implementing the service project with their classmateshelped them feel more connected to each other. This was articulated by the participantwho said: “I just want to say that, just by us doing that, it brought the class togethermore. And when we were [doing the project] there wasn't really anybody arguing. Wewere all working together, trying to make things right.” Indeed, teachers and facilitatorsnoted that one of the most challenging aspects of the program was overcoming thedivisive tone that can often be characteristic of a classroom of adolescents. Yetinterpersonal relationships were also an aspect of the program that appeared to be mostimproved, an observation articulated by one of the intervention classrooms' teacherswho said: “the thing that is most beautiful about this project is that you all have becomea class together.”

Outcome assessment

In addition to establishing whether the program was successful in creating theintended atmosphere for participants, the second goal of this study was to determinewhether taking part in the program led to positive changes in youth global attitudestowards themselves and others. Specifically, this study assessed the impact of the

2 The two treatment groups did not differ significantly in their empowerment rating (t=−1.01, ns).


program on youth self-efficacy, empathy, sense of responsibility, and intent to beinvolved in future community action, as compared to a group of matched controls.Further, the study evaluated the relation between participants' report of their processexperience in the group (i.e., experiencing the program as empowering and promoting asense of community) and attitude changes over time.

Preliminary analysesPrior to conducting the primary analyses, t-tests were used to ensure that there were no

significant differences between the intervention and the control groups on outcomevariables prior to program implementation. Baseline ratings of all of the dependentvariables were not significantly different in the treatment versus control group, thusallowing for comparison over time.

Primary analysesTo test the impact of program participation on all outcome variables, separate repeated

measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with time as the within subject factor and groupstatus as the between subject factor were used. These mixed design ANOVAs take intoaccount changes in the target variables within subjects across time, as well as differences inthe treatment versus control group. A significant Time×Group interaction was expected forall outcome variables, indicating intervention effects.

Outcome findingsParticipation in the program was expected to promote youths' self-efficacy, intent to be

involved in future community service/social action, empathy, and sense of responsibility.Consistent with this expectation, participation in the program significantly affected youths'intent to be involved in future community action: F(42,1)=4.3, p=.046, η2 = .09, 9%explained variance; as well as their empathy: F(42,1)=10.1, p=.00, η2 = .20; 20%explained variance.3 Paired sample t-tests further revealed that the program significantlyincreased empathy: t(28,1)=4.2, p=.00, and that the program both prevented a naturaldecline and increased intent to be involved in future community action: t(28,1)=1.5, p=.16for treatment group; t(13,1)=1.6, p=.14 for control group. Involvement in the communityservice program did not significantly increase participants' sense of civic responsibility:F(42,1)= .00 p=.95; and changes in self-efficacy were not significant: F(42,1)=3.1, p=.09.

There were no main effects for time and group status for any of the four criterionvariables, indicating that changes in the outcomes were not due to the passage of time orgroup status alone.

Program process experience and outcome findingsSeparate hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted for each outcome

variable in order to directly evaluate the relationship between participants' experience of theprogram (empowerment and sense of community) and change over time (self-efficacy,intent to be involved in future community action or empathy). To account for the effect of

3 η2 (eta squared) is the experimental effect size. This is equivalent to the regression coefficient (R2) for a non-linear regression line assumed to pass through all group means (George & Mallery, 1999; Field, 2000).


pre-intervention scores, pretest rating on the outcome variable (self-efficacy, intent to beinvolved in future community action or empathy) was entered as an independent variable inblock one. Report on the program process variable (empowerment and sense of communityscore) was entered as an independent variable in block two. The dependent variable was thecorresponding report on the outcome variable (self-efficacy, intent to be involved in futurecommunity action, or empathy) at posttest.

Results indicated that participant reports on the process experience predicted 33%additional variance in participants' post-intervention intent to be involved in futurecommunity action: ΔR2 = .33; p<.001. Participant reports on the program processexperience also significantly predicted 29% additional variance in posttest scores on self-efficacy: ΔR2= .29; p=<.001. Participant reports on program processes did notsignificantly predict empathy scores at posttest over and above the impact of participants'pretest empathy scores.

Discussion

Research suggests that youth community service programs have the potential to be aninteresting and engaging means to promote positive youth development. Indeed, becauseservice-learning and community service activities are already widely accepted and supportedin schools across the nation, this type of program can be a particularly opportune vehicle forchange. Yet optimizing the effectiveness of youth service programs requires that programcontent and processes be designed to target key variables related to positive youthdevelopment. The present community service program attempted to meet this need throughincluding activities and structures to promote adolescent empowerment and sense ofcommunity, two factors identified as integral to growth at this stage (Erikson, 1968;Finkenauer et al., 2002). Highlighting the importance of program processes, the evaluationfocused on determining if the program successfully established the intended atmosphere forparticipants, and if this process experience related to positive changes in participants over time.

Process experience

Both qualitative and quantitative data suggested that the program was experienced asempowering and promoting a sense of community amongst participants. Indeed, post-intervention interviews suggested that the two most salient aspects of the program forparticipants were those that were targeted in the program design: (1) the opportunity to feelin control of something important (empowerment) and (2) doing so through collaborationwith peers (sense of community). Youth reports that they felt both personally empoweredand connected to each other during the project suggests that the intervention might haveeffectively integrated these distinct and sometimes contradictory needs of adolescence, askill identified as key to positive development (Harter, 1990; Roeser & Lau, 2002).

Outcome data

Preliminary data indicated that participating in the youth service program increased youthself-reported empathy. Accordingly, youth were more likely to endorse empathic statements


such as “I get upset when I see someone get hurt” and less likely to indicate that “It's hard forme to see why someone else gets upset” following participation in the community serviceprogram (20% of the variance explained). Participation in the program was also found to bothprevent natural declines and increase youths' intent to be involved in future social action/community service. Thus, participants expressed an increased certainty that they would usetheir talents, skills and powers to be actively involved in their community as an adult (9% ofthe variance explained). These two findings suggest that the program might have been mosteffective in promoting aspects of a prosocial personality (Penner and Finkelstein, 1998).Promoting prosocial attitudes has been identified as important to positive adolescentdevelopment, as it is believed that youth who exhibit prosocial attitudes and behaviors aremore likely to develop an enduring positive self-identity over time (Spencer, 1999).

Relation between process experience and outcomes

Study findings on the relationship between participants' process experience and change inattitudes toward themselves and others suggest that at least some participant changes wererelated to the extent to which the program promoted empowerment and sense of community.Specifically, participant reports of how empowering and community building the programwas for them related significantly to change in self-efficacy and intent to be involved in futurecommunity action from pre-to post-intervention. Interestingly, however, participant reportson program processes did not significantly predict changes in empathy over time, yet theoutcome evaluation indicated that taking part in the program had a positive effect onparticipant empathy. Although it is unclear why this is the case, one hypothesis is that theprocess of engaging in community service itself (a helping activity) might lead to empathydevelopment, while the process of the service being youth-led (an empowerment factor)might be critical to increasing self-efficacy and intent to be involved in future communityaction. Although the preliminary nature of these findings precludes any conclusions basedupon this study, examination of this issue in future program evaluations is warranted.

Limitations and future directions

The present study was a pilot investigation into the key components of a youthcommunity service program designed to promote youth positive development. Care wastaken to design the program in the context of developmental theory, and some preliminaryfindings suggest that a program created to meet adolescent developmental needs has thepotential to positively impact participating youth. Although promising, these findingsremain tentative, as there are several limitations.

First, participants in the intervention and control group were assigned on a classroom-wide, rather than an individual basis, making it possible that factors other than theintervention – such as teacher behavior, other class activities – led to the differences foundbetween the intervention and control groups. Second, only three classrooms took part, withone serving as the control group. This small sample size might have affected reliability of themeasures and/or limited the power to detect program effects. Third, because the presentprogram evaluation was consistent with the recent movement towards addressing youth assetsas opposed to deficit-based models (Leffert et al., 1998; Oman et al., 2002), there was no


assessment of the impact of group participation on problem behaviors. Finally, the presentstudy assessed only youth self-reported attitudes and did not measure behavior changes.

Future directionsAlthough findings from this preliminary investigation are promising, it should be noted

that there were relatively few significant changes with somewhat small effect sizes.Although the non-significant findings might have been due to measurement or powerlimitations, recent literature suggests additional ways that programs such as this might leadto more robust findings. For example, the present program lasted for only 20 sessions overthe course of 10 weeks, yet some research has found that service programs often havenegligible effects if they involve less than 40 h of student engagement (Billig, 2006). In thefuture, increasing the amount of engagement might increase the strength of the serviceprogram as an agent of change.

More and larger effect sizes might have also been found if the program had includedadditional activities or procedures to further enhance empowerment and sense ofcommunity. For example, although the adult facilitators made consistent efforts to allowstudents to take control of the project, one of the teachers noted that it was oftendifficult not to take over, especially “when you felt like what they wanted to do wasn'tgoing to work at all.” Yet Cameron and Cadell (1999) noted it is exactly these situationswhere it is most important to resist the urge, pointing out that it is extremely disem-powering for a professional to intervene and try to “help” in an attempt to make theproject look better to outsiders. Despite best efforts, it is possible that there wereoccasions during the program when participants were not given as much power andcontrol as they could have been, i.e., when adult efforts to provide support and structurecrossed the line into disempowerment.

Although future studies are warranted, this preliminary investigation of the impact of atheoretically driven youth community service program provides encouraging results. Thus,findings from this study suggest that a youth service program designed to promoteempowerment and sense of community can lead to positive changes in empathy and intentto be involved in future community action. In addition, assessment of the processexperience and the relation between process and outcome variables supports previousliterature suggesting that the design and implementation of a youth service program isimportant to its success. In the end, it appears that a youth service activity that isthoughtfully designed and implemented might benefit both the community and the youngparticipants, making youth service programs a true win–win situation.

Acknowledgements

The present study was the conducted as the doctoral dissertation of the first author. Theauthors would like to thank Donna Heretick who provided clinical supervision and supportthroughout the present project. Great appreciation is also extended to the staff at RiversideElementary School in Toledo, Ohio, including principals Cindy Kline and Laurie Cranston,and teachers Tricia Fojtik, Matthew Mutchler, and Christina Ramsey. Most importantly, thesixth grade students who took part are to be commended for their effort and commitment tothe improvement of themselves and their community.


References

Allen, J. P., Kuperminc, G., Philliber, S., & Herre, K. (1994). Programmatic prevention of adolescent problembehaviors: The role of autonomy, relatedness, and volunteer service in the teen outreach program. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 22, 617−638.

Bainbridge-Frymier, A., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowermentmeasure. Communication Education, 45, 182−199.

Billig. (2006). The impact of service-learning on high school students' civic and academic engagement. Presen-tation at the 17 Annual National Service-Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

Billig, S. (2000). The effects of service-learning. School Administrator, 57(7), 14−19.Billig, S. (2004). Heads, hearts, and hands: The research on K-12 service-learning. Growing to Greatness 2004.

St. Paul: National Youth Leadership Council.Billig, S., Root, S., & Jesse, D. (2005). The relationship between the quality indicators of service-learning and

student outcomes: Testing professional wisdom. Improving service-learning practice: Research on models toenhance impacts (pp. 97−115). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.

Blyth, D., Saito, R., & Berkas, T. (1997). A quantitative study of the impact of service-learning programs. InA. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications from the research. New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssoc.

Bryant, B. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413−425.Cameron, G., & Cadell, S. (1999). Fostering empowering participation in prevention programs for disadvantaged

children and families: Lessons from ten demonstration sites. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health,18, 105−119.

Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., McMillan, D. W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of community throughBrunswik's Lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 24−40.

Clements, P., & Seidman, E. (2002). The ecology of middle grades schools and possible selves. In T. M.Brinthaupt, & R. P. Lipka (Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications andinterventions. Albany: SUNY Press.

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1991). School-based community service: What we know from research and theory. PhiDelta Kappan, 77, 743−749.

Corporation for National and Community Service (1999). Summary report: National evaluation of Learn andServe America and community-based programs. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2006a, February). Fiscal year 2007 congressional budgetjustification. Washington, DC: Author.

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2006b, March). Educating for Active citizenship: Service-Learning, School-Based Service, and Civic Engagement. Brief 2 in the Youth Helping America Series.Washington, DC: Author.

Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Hightower, A. D., Wyman, P. A., Parker, G. R., & Lotyczewski, B. S. (1991). Towardthe development of a measure of perceived self-efficacy in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20,169−178.

Duckenfield, M., & Drew, S. (2006).Measure what matters and no child will be left behind. Growing to Greatness2006. St. Paul: National Youth Leadership Council.

Education Commission of the States. (2001, March). Institutionalized service-learning in the 50 states (service-learning policy scan). Denver, CO: Anthes, K.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1997). The importance of program quality in service-learning. In A. Waterman (Ed.),

Service-learning: Applications from the research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage Publications.Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Meeus, W., & Oosterwegel, A. (2002). Self and identity in early adolescence.

In T. M. Brinthaupt, & R. P. Lipka (Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications andinterventions. Albany: SUNY Press.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (1999). SPSS for Windows step by step. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Harter, S. (1990). Self and identity development. In S. S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The

developing adolescent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


Hoeltje, C., Zubrick, S., & Garton, A. (1996). Generalized self-efficacy: Family and adjustment correlates. Journalof Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 446−453.

Kazdin, A. E., & Kendall, P. C. (1998). Current progress and future plans for developing effective treatments:Comments and perspectives. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(2), 217−226.

Kennedy, E. (1991). National service and education for citizenship. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 771−773.Larson, R., Walker, K., & Pierce, N. (2005). A comparison of youth-driven and adult-driven youth programs:

Balancing inputs from youth and adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 57−74.Learning in Deed and The Education Commission of the States. (2001). Integrating youth voice in service-learning

(Issue Paper SL-01-01). Denver, CO: Fredericks, L., Kaplan, E., & Zeisler, J.Leffert, N., Benson, P., Scales, P., Sharma, A., Drake, D., & Blyth, D. (1998). Developmental assets: Measurement

and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2, 209−230.Lewis, B. (1998).What do you stand for? A kid's guide to building character.Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing,

Inc.Lynch, B. F., Condon, R. H., Newell, D., & Regan, M. (1990). Positive social action in the treatment of male sexual

abuse victims. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 7, 59−74.McLellan, J., & Youniss, J. (2003). Two systems of youth service: Determinants of voluntary and required youth

community service. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 47−58.Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 523−543.Mesch, G. (2001). Social relationships and internet use among adolescents in Israel. Social Science Quarterly, 82,

329−339.Metz, E. C., & Youniss, J. (2005). Longitudinal gains in civic development through school-based required service.

Political Psychology, 26(3), 413−437.Nathan, J., & Kielsmeier, J. (1991). The sleeping giant of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 739−742.Oman, R., Vesely, S., McLeroy, K., Harris-Wyatt, V., Aspy, C., Rodine, S., et al. (2002). Reliability and validity of

the Youth Asset Survey (YAS). Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 247−255.Patchin, S. H. (1994). Community service for five-year-olds (and laughing all the way). Young Children, 20−21.Penner, L., & Finkelstein, M. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 525−537.Perkins, D. D. (1995). Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social intervention and policy.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 765−794.Richie, B. S., Fassinger, R. E., Linn, S. G., Johnson, J., Prosser, J., & Robinson, S. (1997). Persistence, connection

and passion: A qualitative study of the career development of highly achieving African–American–black andwhite women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 133−148.

Riger, S. (1993). What's wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 279−292.Roeser, R., & Lau, S. (2002). On academic identity formation in middle school settings during early adolescence.

In T. M. Brinthaupt, & R. P. Lipka (Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications andinterventions. Albany: SUNY Press.

Sandler, L., Vandegrift, J., & VerBrugghen, C. (1995). From desert to garden: Reconnecting disconnected youth.Educational Leadership, 14−16.

Serow, R. (1997). Research and evaluation on service learning: The case for holistic assessment. In A. Waterman(Ed.), Service-learning: Applications from the research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.

Shumer, R. (1997). Learning from qualitative research. In A. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications fromthe research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.

Shumer, R. (2005). Service-learning research: What we have learned from the past. Growing to Greatness 2005.St. Paul: National Youth Leadership Council.

Spencer, M. B. (1999). Social and cultural influences on school adjustment: The application of an identity-focusedcultural ecological perspective. Educational Psychologist, 34(1), 43−57.

Terry, A. W., & Bohnenberger, J. E. (2003). Service learning: Fostering a cycle of caring in our gifted youth.Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(1), 23−32.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Volunteer service of youngpeople from high school through early adulthood (NELS:88). Washington, DC: Planty, M. & Regnier, M.

Verlande, L. D., Starling, R. G., & Wallerstein, N. B. (2002). Identity in early adolescence via social changeactivities: Experience of the adolescent social action program. In T. M. Brinthaupt, & R. P. Lipka (Eds.),Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and interventions. Albany: SUNY Press.


Wade. (1997). Teachers of service learning. In A. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications from theresearch New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.

Waterman, A. (1997). The role of student characteristics in service-learning. In A. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications from the research New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996a). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. SocialDevelopment, 5, 95−105.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996b). Community service and political–moral identity in adolescence. Journal ofResearch on Adolescence, 6, 271−284.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and political identity development in adolescence. Journal ofSocial Issues, 54, 495−512.

Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, V., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M., & Silbereisen, R. (2002). Youth civicengagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 121−148.

Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth service and moral–civic identity: A case for everyday morality. Educa-tional Psychology Review, 11, 361−376.

Zimmerman, M. (2000). Empowerment theory. In J. Rappaport, & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of communitypsychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 23, 581−599.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control and psychologicalempowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725−750.

empowering youth to change their world: identifying key components of a community service program to...

Documents