Menu
Brosnan A, Griner S. Enhancing youth impact: the critical role of youth-adult partnerships in effective youth-serving organizations – insights from a Texas county. HPHR. 2024. 85. https://doi.org/10.54111/0001/GGGG7
Including youth in the creation, implementation, and evaluation of programs and policies that directly impact them not only has individual benefits for the youth but has a direct benefit to society. The purpose of this paper is to describe the benefits of youth-adult partnership (Y-AP) in youth-serving organizations. Furthermore, an analysis of local current youth-serving organizations is shared with recommendations for improving youth-adult partnerships in the community as a case study.
A literature review was conducted to describe the benefits and impacts of Y-APs through a social-ecological model. A content analysis of publicly available data was conducted on youth serving organizations within a Texas county and assessed for the presence of youth-adult partnership. Fifty-seven organizations analyzed were categorized based on services they provided.
Literature review revealed Y-APs are linked to increased self-esteem, positive identity, well-being, high resiliency, and leadership skill development. These partnerships allow for the development of peer interpersonal relationships and set the stage for community action as well as create a sense of increased responsibility toward others. Locally, only 20% of organizations had youth-adult partnership within their organization, with small percentages addressing the most pressing issues identified in the community.
A Quick Start Y-AP Formation Guide was developed to encourage community-based organizations to incorporate youth-adult partnership. Many organizations overlap in their service areas but are disconnected; a youth-led coalition at the county level could be organized to bring unification and increased communication between organizations.
Adolescence can be described as a developmental period synonymous with change. Changes in hormones and hormonal processing lead to physical changes, biological changes, cognitive changes, social changes, and changes with even the worldview one holds. The entirety of the social ecological system is impacted when an individual enters adolescence, normally marked by the onset of puberty around 9-12 years of age.1 It is also synonymous with opportunity as an adolescent faces these changes and can choose a path forward leading to positive outcomes for themselves and others or venture on a path leading toward ill health and poor outcomes.2 Too often adolescence is viewed only as a period filled with increased risktaking,3 with youth seen through a deficit-lens and exaggerated focus on the potential for the wrong path.4 This leads to adult-developed programming and policies that seek to mitigate risk or approach youth only as beneficiaries of said programs/policies.5,6 Adolescent research involving youth can be sparse7 and they are often used as participants instead of those that can provide insight into the study.8 Adults tend to offer less responsibility than is developmentally appropriate to youth,9 assume that youth cannot understand oppression and power,10 and sometimes programming that does involve youth is more for tokenism8 or poorly designed so that patronizing of youth occurs.9
It is no bold statement to say that youth are the future. As one researcher noted “the future of civil society in the world rests on the promotion of positive development and a commitment to positive and socially just community contributions by the young”.11(p251) Many community groups, governmental agencies, non-profit organizations, schools, and religious institutions design programs and policies with good intentions to impact youth and create a trajectory for positive outcomes. Yet, these often fall short due to the lack of youth inclusion and empowerment as it is often the naivety of the adult that needs addressing.12 Furthermore, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child declares “it is a fundamental human right for youth and young adults to participate in designing the programs and policies aiming to serve them”.5 (p16) Including youth in the creation, implementation, and evaluation of programs and policies that directly impact them not only has individual benefits for the youth, but has a direct benefit to society.9,13 Adolescents are creative, innovative, curious, and can be change agents through multiple social ecological levels.14
While inclusion of youth is imperative, it is no difficult feat as the tendency for adultism to shine can occur, leading to the need for detail, care, and caution as youth involvement is planned and implemented, less their inclusion turns into one that serves as decoration, tokenism, or manipulation.15 To start, one should consider this endeavor under the framework of “youth-adult partnership” (Y-AP). At its core, it is youth and adults working together, including in decision-making that affect youth, with an opportunity to strengthen not only the organization or research but bring about social justice and change in the community.13 The Y-AP is one of connection, sharing, and mentorship and can impact the individual youth and the social-ecological system alike.16
To understand the current state of Y-AP, we conducted a literature review to identify and summarize the benefits and barriers. To determine the practical relevance of Y-AP, we present a case study including a needs assessment and a content analysis of youth serving organizations within a Texas county with the presence of Y-AP. From this, we developed a Quick Start Y-AP Formation Guide to encourage community-based organizations to incorporate Y-AP into their programming.
The purpose of this literature review was conducted to describe the benefits and impacts of Y-APs through a social-ecological model and gather foundational, descriptive information on youth-adult partnerships. PubMed and Scopus databases were used, and search terms were based on two concepts:
“community-engaged” OR “advisory board*” OR “youth-engaged”
AND
adolescent* OR adolescence OR teen OR teenager* OR youth* OR “young adult*”
Inclusion criteria were articles that mentioned working with youth and discussed involving youth at a high participatory level. Exclusion criteria were articles on specific studies on youth without youth inclusion in decision-making/at a high-participatory level. A total of 34 articles were reviewed.
The literature review findings are presented as benefits and impacts of Y-APs at each level of the social-ecological model.
Individual Level. A Y-AP rooted in social justice, with the goal of strengthening individuals and the community, is linked to increased self-esteem, positive identity, well-being, high resiliency, and leadership skill development.4, 17-19 Youth voice, meaning youth feel they have impact on situations affecting them and have ownership with a sense of empowerment and efficacy, has been linked to positive growth and increased sense of responsibility.16 Y-APs allow for skill development, a sense of personal agency and the ability to promote justice in their community.13 As one youth noted as part of a research team in a Y-AP setting “I learned that my own lived experiences are valid sources of research. I had never thought of my own life and actions in that way, and I thought that was very enlightening’’.20(p25)
Interpersonal Level. Furthermore, a Y-AP allows for the development of peer interpersonal relationships as well as youth-adult relationships that can have a significant positive impact. This stage of life spends more time with peers than other stages of childhood or adulthood,21 and we see that there is a strong desire for acceptance and favorable social status.1,2 Self-efficacy can be fostered in young persons when working in collaborative partnership with adults who are viewed as having power.13,16 Furthermore, evidence details that peer youth mentoring often arises in a Y-AP setting,13 and their own personal growth and development positively influences their other relationships such as with family members.22
Community-Level. Y-APs can have significant impact, not only in the youth being impacted by contributions to the community, but the mutual community benefits received from the Y-AP. Young people are incredibly aware of their surroundings, injustices, and issues affecting their peers yet often feel voiceless and powerless to make a change in the community. A Y-AP sets the stage for community action, allowing the youth to take the lead on issues they feel are most pressing to their generation. One form of a Y-AP is youth participatory action research, which is an asset-based form of research where youth are viewed as co-contributors and experts on their lives.6 Youth participatory action research can create “change agents” in the community10 as youth learn to identify problems, collect data, analyze it and then take action to positively transform their environment.23 Y-APs allow for improving health equity, as youth can work to “shift power structures and change inequitable systems, policies and practices”.24(p269)
Societal Level. There is a direct benefit to society through civic engagement and promotion of youth participation in Y-AP settings.9 Too often organizations, policies, programs, or rules that seek to protect, serve, develop, or positively impact youth are formed without youth inclusion. Y-AP settings can create a sense of increased responsibility toward others15 and, within an empowerment framework, can lead adolescents toward sociopolitical change through collective efforts.18 Particularly for marginalized youth, they are often labeled as unmotivated and uninterested in civic engagement when it is actually a lack of access and empowerment that is the underlying issue.19 Research is richer, communities are strengthened, organizations are improved, and policies are better when youth are not only included but elevated as experts on their lives and worthy contributors to these endeavors.
The literature review findings are presented as benefits and impacts of Y-APs at each level of the social-ecological model.
A large county within Texas was analyzed, including data from a local needs assessment and recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS, n=1,992). Emotional health findings were apparent, including evidence revealing one-third of high school students felt sad or hopeless almost every day for two or more weeks in a row. The percent of students who have considered attempting suicide, planned to attempt suicide, or attempted suicide has increased compared to data two years prior. Regarding violence and intimidation on school property, there was an increase in percent of students who were in a physical altercation on school property and 11% of students admitted not attending school at least one day during the 30 days before the survey due to feeling unsafe at, or on their way to/from, school. Over 40% of students have tried using an electronic vapor product and almost one-quarter of students reported currently drinking alcohol. As well, 15% had taken prescription pain medication without a provider’s direct prescription or differently than how a doctor told them to use it. Specific to sexual health, 25% of students report being sexually active with at least one person during the three months prior to the survey. Among students who are sexually active, 76.8% reported they did not use a form of contraception.
Furthermore, the following year a needs assessment was conducted within the community, with a goal to not only provide early intervention and prevention of risk behaviors leading to juvenile crime but also to help foster positive development in youth as they grow into adulthood. High-risk zip codes were identified based on low school accountability ratings, high maltreatment risks, high juvenile crime, and high poverty rates. Three hundred persons were surveyed, 92% of whom were youth, as well as 15 interviews with prominent community leaders were conducted. Interview findings revealed concerns for student behavior problems including fighting, truancy, and vaping. Furthermore, interviewees noted the need for culture change with more evidence-based prevention strategies for students in the juvenile justice system. All interviewees supported mentorships and programs that instill life skills and positive peer relationships. Survey finding showed that the top concerns in the school setting for participants included boredom, gossip/rumors, stress, bullying, and bad peer influences. Top concerns in the community setting included gun violence, alcohol use, drug use, homelessness, and gangs. Participants selected items such as field trips, life skills, sports, counseling, and music to address the problems in schools and the community.
In summary, correlates from both data resources revealed concerns for teen vaping, substance use in the community, school bullying/feeling unsafe at school or on the way to school. Also, mental health concerns were identified as a concern on both the community needs assessment and the local YRBS.
A website analysis was conducted on youth serving organizations within the county. In order to identify youth serving organizations, Google search engine was utilized, and the search terms were:
“youth+serving+organizations+name of county”
Youth-Communities Foundation of Texas resulted on the first page and included a list of 62 organizations that provide programs and services for youth. Also, the local government website offered a list of 24 “youth services” providers. These lists were combined and ultimately 57 organizations were identified as operating within the county.
Each organization’s website was analyzed with an intent to categorize the service provided and describe information and services offered by the organization. Most importantly, websites were reviewed for mention of youth-adult partnership. This could be in a formal setting such as a youth advisory council or informal such as specific activities that are planned by youth within the organization. Organizations analyzed were categorized based on services they provided, with some organizations meeting multiple categories.
Summarized results are presented in Table 1 along with category descriptions. Opportunities such as youth advisory councils, youth-led experiences, or youth advisory boards were viewed as youth contribution and youth-adult partnership. About one in five had this level of youth involvement within their organization. Interestingly, one-third of youth development organizations, which focus on youth leadership, were found to have Y-APs. The largest category, youth support, only had about seven percent of its organizations offering high levels of youth involvement at the planning/policy level.
Table 1. Organization and Youth-Adult Partnership Involvement in the County Youth Serving Organization Case Study
Organization Category | Category Description | Total | % out of all Organizations | Youth Involvement or Y-AP |
Youth Support | Organizations offering youth support services such as counseling, case management, teen pregnancy resources, or job training. | 29 | 50.9% | 2 |
Youth Activity | Organizations offering activities for youth such as camping or sports participation. | 14 | 24.6% | 5 |
Youth Development | Organizations that offer leadership experiences or specifically identifies itself as offering youth development services. | 12 | 21.1% | 4 |
Youth Advocacy | Organizations that advocate on behalf of the youth such as in legal situations or foster care. | 9 | 15.8% | 2 |
Mentorship | Organizations offering adult mentorship to youth. | 9 | 15.8% | 1 |
Religious | Organizations affiliated with religious institutions and/or centered on religious principles. | 6 | 10.5% | 1 |
Housing | Organizations that provide emergency-shelter or housing options for youth. | 6 | 10.5% | 1 |
Substance Use | Organizations with intent to prevent, educate, and/or intervene in substance use issues with youth. | 6 | 10.5% | 0 |
After-School | Organizations that offer after-school programming for youth. | 5 | 8.8% | 2 |
Medical | Organizations that offer medical services to youth. | 3 | 5.3% | 1 |
Transportation | Organizations offering transportation services to youth. | 2 | 3.5% | 0 |
Research | Organizations dedicated to research pertaining to children and adolescents. | 1 | 1.8% | 0 |
Gang intervention | Organizations with intent to intervene and reduce gang violence in the community. | 1 | 1.8% | 1 |
Crime prevention | Organizations that work to positively impact juvenile justice system. | 1 | 1.8% | 1 |
LGBTQ support | Organizations that have identified LGBTQ youth as a specific population to impact and support. | 1 | 1.8% | 0 |
Financial support | Organizations offering financial support to youth and their families. | 1 | 1.8% | 0 |
Total Organizations |
| 57 | – | – |
Total with Youth Involvement/Y-AP |
| – | 19.3% | 11 |
Note: Y-AP = Youth-Adult Partnership
The findings of the case study indicate gaps in the needs and current services provided in the county. While mentorship was identified as an important aspect needed in the community by the needs assessment, only 16% of the organizations offered mentoring services. If more youth-adult partnership existed, this need could easily be met as Y-APs can offer mentorship in themselves. The largest category of organizations, youth support, could meet the needs in the realm of stress reduction and emotional health support, as issues identified on both the YRBS and needs assessment. Only one organization listed gang intervention as a service though it was noted to be a high concern for survey respondents. Also, while substance use was identified as a concern in the community and over one-third of students having used marijuana, only a small proportion of organizations provided services in this arena. Only one organization specifically identified the LGBTQ population as a priority population to provide support.
Given roughly 20% of youth serving organizations had Y-APs, it is unsurprising that most organizations lacked focus areas identified by youth as important in the community. If youth voice is not elevated at the partnership level, and organizations are only reliant on adult-led ideas and action, how can it equitably and accurately meet the needs of those it is serving?
Overall, limitations of this research include if an adolescent was not in school for the YRBS survey nor surveyed by the needs assessment, then their opinion was not included, missing out on important populations like youth disconnected from school or youth who may have been missing school or involved in truancy. Limitations of the website investigation include that the discovery of youth serving organizations was completed entirely online. If an organization does not have a website or was not discoverable using the search terms, then it would not have been included for analysis. Also, an organization may have a youth involvement component in its planning/processes/programs but may have chosen not to list this on the website.
As a suggestion for next steps, Appendix A is a “quick start” guide for organizations to consider and plan for Y-AP implementation. This guide could be developed in the future into a full-length, more detailed guide with incorporation of interviews and data from current organizations that utilize Y-APs. The guide encourages four steps in creating a Y-AP. First, an assessment of the current status with youth involvement is needed. The organization must evaluate if youth are merely informed of policies, practices and events in the organization or are empowered to participate in the planning and execution of said policies, practices and events. The next step requires the organization to consider where it would like to go. Would it like to increase youth involvement? Keep the involvement at the same level? Again, prior research exists to help objectively evaluate and plan future youth involvement. Thirdly, the organization can consider what specific type of youth-adult partnership or youth involvement it would like and to what degree of involvement. Lastly, once steps 1-3 are completed, the final stage is to collaborate, self-evaluate, and monitor for successful implementation.
Youth-adult partnership should be a high priority for any youth-serving organization. This single-county case study, which revealed significant gaps in youth concerns verses organization focus, should call to action communities across the nation to evaluate their own needs and youth-serving organizations, with a high emphasize on inclusion of youth in that very evaluation. Undoubtedly more organizations could incorporate youth at their planning, programming, and/or policy level with the creation of a formal Y-AP model. Furthermore, increased communication and connection is recommended, as many organizations overlap in their service areas and do not appear connected to other youth-serving organizations within the community. The research is clear. Adolescents are not future change agents. They can be change agents now. To have an organization that does not just impact an individual youth but has the ability to impact the community and society at large is a noble endeavor, and it may feel challenging to imagine that type of influence at every level of the social-ecological model. Yet it is possible through the Y-AP model.
Step 1: Assess the current state of your organization
a. A good place to begin is to assess currently how your organization works with youth. Does it simply serve youth as participants? Is youth input present but in an informal setting? Below are levels of public participation and empowerment that can be used to assess their involvement:
Source: Head BW. Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation. Children and Youth Services Review. 2011;33(4):541-547. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.015
b. Another valuable tool for assessing youth involvement is the following Ladder of Youth People’s Participation:
Source: Wong NT, Zimmerman MA, Parker EA. A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. Am J Community Psychol. Sep 2010;46(1-2):100-14. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0
Step 2: Discuss where you’d like to go
Source: Wong NT, Zimmerman MA, Parker EA. A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. Am J Community Psychol. Sep 2010;46(1-2):100-14. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0
a. Vessel and Symbolic participation types involve adults spearheading participation and activities. Many argue this form of involvement is beneficial with “traditional pedagogical relationships with adults” such as in formal teaching settings. It is described as “nutrient power” or a helping relationship such as those between parent and child.
b.Pluralistic: This participation type is true youth-adult partnership. It has been noted that, at this level, it can “provide optimal conditions for youth empowerment and positive youth development”. Adults can provide a welcoming, encouraging and enabling environment and, when it comes to decision-making, both adults and youth can decide collectively if shared decision making is appropriate or the decision is better left to adults or youth individually. A key ingredient to this level is feedback loops or formal processes for both groups to share their feelings and engage with one another. Adults and youth alike recognize the strengths of one another and work in partnership. This participation level has high opportunity for youth empowerment and positive youth development.
c. Independent and Autonomous: These participation types involve youth as the main decisionmakers and the adult ceding power completely to youth. Researchers note that often adults choose this type of model when the belief exists that “power is a zero-sum phenomenon” and to have power present it must mean power over so, in order to avoid this, adults give up their power completely.
Step 3: Consider what type of Y-AP your organization could form.
a. After Step 1 and Step 2, if the goal is to increase youth participation and youth-adult partnership, consider what type of Y-AP would be most beneficial. Y-APs can take the form of youth participatory action research, youth advisory boards, youth committees or even an integration of these. Examples can be found throughout the literature:
b. The Y-AP should be framed by youth empowerment and positive youth development
(PYD), with research showing that youth and adult collaboration can cultivate both.15 Youth empowerment is a framework that is strengths-based and helps the young person to understand social, cultural and political influences on his/her life.15 It allows for the development of critical consciousness15 and focuses on collective effort to affect change. In addition, PYD should be an overlapping frame working in tandem with empowerment in any youth-adult partnership. PYD “occurs when opportunities are made available to youth in meaningful ways and when relationships support young people to develop their own unique capacities and abilities”.4p161 There are “5 Cs” to consider that encompass PYD: competence, caring, social connections, character and confidence11,17 which can be incorporated into the Y-AP model.
c. Youth-Adult Partnership Formats:24
Type of Y-AP | Description |
Youth Organizing | Adolescents are key facilitators in identifying issues at the community level and organizing to make change, utilizing their own power. Adult partners can train youth in organizing principles with social justice and equity as important components. |
Youth-Led Planning | Clients such as government agencies or other organizations work with youth on a specific planning problem that involves youth services, such as how to increase accesses to local parks for youth. |
Youth Advisory Boards/Councils | Youth serve on advisory boards or councils, providing a continual and sustained platform for them to provide insight, perspective, opinions and solutions to organizations and policies that seek to serve youth. |
Youth Participatory Action Research | Youth are trained as researchers and empowered as experts who can provide important insight into the problem and/or study being conducted. They are given agency to not only identify issues they deem important to address but also create ways to positively impact the community and “shift power structures and change inequitable systems, policies and practices.” |
Step 4: Collaborate and Check-In
The authors have no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.
Amanda Brosnan, MPAS, MPH, PA-C, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Health Professions at the University of North Texas Health Science Center.
Stacey B. Griner, PhD, MPH, CPH, is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health at the University of North Texas Health Science Center.
BCPHR.org was designed by ComputerAlly.com.
Visit BCPHR‘s publisher, the Boston Congress of Public Health (BCPH).
Email [email protected] for more information.
Click below to make a tax-deductible donation supporting the educational initiatives of the Boston Congress of Public Health, publisher of BCPHR.
© 2024 BCPHR: An Academic, Peer-Reviewed Journal