<%BANNER%>

An Evaluation of Youth-Adult Partnerships in Florida 4-H Programs

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042213/00001

Material Information

Title: An Evaluation of Youth-Adult Partnerships in Florida 4-H Programs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (108 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kochert, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 4h, adult, community, engagement, florida, interaction, involvement, partnership, youth
Family, Youth and Community Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Family, Youth and Community Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The past two decades have seen an increase in the desire to build genuine, effective partnerships between youth and adults, focused on addressing the needs and concerns of both within community-based youth programs. One result from this focus has been the development of the Youth-Adult Partnership (YAP) model. Within the Florida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement the YAP model. While these programs have been implemented over the past five years within Florida, no evaluation had yet been performed on the effectiveness of this programming model for participants within the state. This research sought to identify the impact of various levels of Youth-Adult Partnership experience and training on levels of involvement and quality of interactions within the partnership, as well as potential for continued engagement within the community. Three groups of youth were identified within this study: 1) those who participated in YAP trainings and who facilitated YAP experiences within their communities, 2) those who believe they facilitated YAP experiences within their communities without having participated in a state-led YAP training program, and 3) those who had never participated in either a state-led YAP training nor facilitated any YAP experiences within their community. Results indicate that youth who were trained in the YAP model were significantly more likely to perceive the levels of youth involvement within the project more positively than either of their counterparts ? those who only facilitated YAP opportunities and those who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Trained youth also showed significantly higher perceptions regarding the levels of adult involvement and quality of interactions between youth and adults than those who only facilitated YAP opportunities without YAP training. In regards to potential for continued community engagement, youth who were trained in the YAP model scored both their confidence level following participation and their perception of the importance of personal involvement within the community significantly higher than those youth who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Therefore, strong indications exist in support of Walker?s Theory of Intentionality through the significant increases that occurred between the groups as more intentional program training and opportunities were provided.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica Kochert.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Jordan, Joy C.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042213:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042213/00001

Material Information

Title: An Evaluation of Youth-Adult Partnerships in Florida 4-H Programs
Physical Description: 1 online resource (108 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kochert, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 4h, adult, community, engagement, florida, interaction, involvement, partnership, youth
Family, Youth and Community Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Family, Youth and Community Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The past two decades have seen an increase in the desire to build genuine, effective partnerships between youth and adults, focused on addressing the needs and concerns of both within community-based youth programs. One result from this focus has been the development of the Youth-Adult Partnership (YAP) model. Within the Florida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement the YAP model. While these programs have been implemented over the past five years within Florida, no evaluation had yet been performed on the effectiveness of this programming model for participants within the state. This research sought to identify the impact of various levels of Youth-Adult Partnership experience and training on levels of involvement and quality of interactions within the partnership, as well as potential for continued engagement within the community. Three groups of youth were identified within this study: 1) those who participated in YAP trainings and who facilitated YAP experiences within their communities, 2) those who believe they facilitated YAP experiences within their communities without having participated in a state-led YAP training program, and 3) those who had never participated in either a state-led YAP training nor facilitated any YAP experiences within their community. Results indicate that youth who were trained in the YAP model were significantly more likely to perceive the levels of youth involvement within the project more positively than either of their counterparts ? those who only facilitated YAP opportunities and those who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Trained youth also showed significantly higher perceptions regarding the levels of adult involvement and quality of interactions between youth and adults than those who only facilitated YAP opportunities without YAP training. In regards to potential for continued community engagement, youth who were trained in the YAP model scored both their confidence level following participation and their perception of the importance of personal involvement within the community significantly higher than those youth who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Therefore, strong indications exist in support of Walker?s Theory of Intentionality through the significant increases that occurred between the groups as more intentional program training and opportunities were provided.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jessica Kochert.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Jordan, Joy C.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042213:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





AN EVALUATION OF YOUTH-ADULT PARTNERSHIPS IN
FLORIDA 4-H YOUTH PROGRAMS




















By

JESSICA L. KOCHERT


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2010

































2010 Jessica L. Kochert
































To all those who have believed in me









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Education has long been a passion of mine thanks to the foundations that my

mother and father instilled in me from a very young age. The work that I have done in

my master's program, and that I will continue to do as a doctoral student, is a direct

result of the love, support, and passion for learning that they have both ensured I felt

throughout my life. Without them, I would not be where I am today.

However, the paths of life twist and turn, with many characters to meet along the

way. Some play the antagonist in your life story, while others provide guidance and

wisdom for making the travel less arduous. I would like to thank Dr. Joy Jordan for her

continual support, guidance, and wisdom over the past several years as my journey has

taken me through the realm of Florida 4-H. I have learned so much from her example

and am grateful for the lessons she has shared. I could not have asked for a better

mentor to help me begin my graduate work. I am eternally grateful.

I would also like to thank Dr. Nicole Stedman, Dr. Larry Forthun, and Dr. Dale

Pracht for serving on my committee. The expertise that they allowed me to glean from

them has served me well, thus far, and I look forward to the day I can call them not only

mentors, but colleagues and friends. Thanks to each of you for all you did to assist me

through this part of my journey.

Finally, I would like to thank Florida 4-H for the opportunity to become a part of a

beautiful program and wonderful history of helping youth become the best they can be.

Thank you for welcoming me in and making me a part of the 4-H family. As our journey

continues, and paths diverge, may we still continue to "make the best better."









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................. .......

LIST O F TA BLES .................................. .......................... ...... ..............7

LIST O F A BBR EV IA T IO N S .............................. .... .......................... .. ... ............ 8

A B S T R A C T ............................................ .... .................................. 9

CHAPTER

1 INTRO DUCTIO N ..... ................ ............................... .............................. ....... 11

B a c k g ro u n d ........................................... .................................................. 1 1
Problem Statement ................ ........ .......... ........... 14
Research Questions ................ ........ ............... 15
H y p o th e s e s ................................................................................................................. 1 5
L im ita tio n s ........................................... ....... .......................................................... 1 6
D efinitio n of T erm s................ ........................................................................................ 16

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............... ................ ................18

From Positive Youth Development to Community Youth Development ........... 18
Community Youth Development (CYD) A Definition ......................... .............. 22
The Theory of Developmental Intentionality Defined ............................................. 25
Problematic Perceptions of Youth and Adults: A History of Youth-Adult
R relationships .................................................................29
Current Trends in Youth-Adult Relationships ................ .......................................... 30
Youth-Adult Partnerships: A Definition............................... ............ ............... 33
Youth-Adult Partnerships within Florida 4-H ......................................... ................. 35

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................................4 3

Purpose ........................ ......... ...... ................ 43
R e s e a rc h D e s ig n ................ ............................................................................. 4 3
U n it of A n a lys is .............................................................. ........ 4 4
P op u latio n a nd S a m p le ................ .............................................................. 4 4
In s tru m e n t D e s ig n ................................... ........................................... .. ............ 4 5
D ata C o lle c tio n ................ ................................... ................... ............................ 5 1
D a ta A n a ly s is ................ ................... ....................................................... 5 2

4 R ES U LTS ................ ......................... ...................... .. .... .... ... ...... .... .. 56

Demographics of Youth Participants........................ ......... .................... 56
Levels of Involvement between Youth with Various Levels of YAP Experience......58









Participation w within YA P Training ...................................... .......... .................. 59
Facilitation of YAP Opportunities within the Community .............................. 59
Serving on Committees and Boards within the Community ............................. 61
Perceived Levels of Involvement within the Youth-Adult Partnership................ 63
Perceived Quality of Interactions between Youth and Adults for Youth with
Various Levels of YAP Experience .......................................... ......................... 66
Interactions on Teaching Teams and Committees/Boards ..................................66
Interactions within Committees and/or Boards .......................... ................ 68
Perceived Quality of Interactions within the Youth-Adult Partnership ...............68
Potential for Continued Community Engagement for Youth with Various Levels
of Y A P E xpe rience ........... ................ ............................ ...... .... ......... 70
Perceived Impacts within the Community ................ ................. 71
Commitment to the Community ......... ........... ................... 75

5 CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................78

Lim itatio ns ................ ....................................... ...........................78
C conclusions ............... ........ ... ...... ...................................... 80
Levels of Involvem ent .......... ......................... ......... .... .. ................ 80
Q quality of Interactions ......... ......... .. ......... .. ........... ................ 82
Potential for Continued Community Engagement.................................... 84
D is c u s s io n s ......... ............... ............................................................... ................ 8 6
Youth-Adult Partnerships in Florida 4-H ....................................................... ... 86
Intentionality within the YAP Programming................ .............. ..................... 89
Continued Community Engagement ................ ............................................... 90
R ecom m endations .................... ....... ... ... ......... ....... .. ......... .......... ..... 91
More Youth-Adult Partnership 4-H Training for Staff and Volunteers ..............91
More Intentional Training for County Youth-Adult Partnership Teams ............. 91
Further Evaluation and Research of Youth-Adult Partnerships .........................92

APPENDIX

A INSTRUMENTATION .................. ............................ .... .. ................. 93

Inform e d C o ns e nt ............................................................................... 9 3
Q questionnaire ........................................ ............ 94

B ITEM RESULTS FROM JONES' (2004) IIRS.................................................... 101

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................... .... .. ................ 103

BIO G RA PH ICA L SKETC H ..................................................... ............................... 108









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Categorized items within community post-then question ............................... 50

4-1 Facilitation of youth-adult partnership community trainings............................... 60

4-2 Between group mean comparisons of YAP facilitation opportunities ................. 61

4-3 Committees and board service within the community .......................................62

4-4 Group paired ANCOVA results for youth only committees and board service
w within the com m unity.............. ... .............. ................................. ....... 63

4-5 Group paired ANCOVA results for youth involvement sub-scale.........................64

4-6 Group paired ANCOVA results for transformed adult involvement sub-scale ..... 65

4-7 Crosstab results for interactions on teaching teams ................................. 67

4-8 Crosstab results for interactions on committees................................... 67

4-9 Crosstab results for defined committee role ....................... ........................... 68

4-10 Group paired ANCOVA results for transformed youth-adult interaction sub-
s c a le ................ ..........................................................................................................7 0

4-11 Categorized items within community post-then question ............... ................ 71

4-12 Cronbach's alpha reliability for each category .............. .......... ................ 72

4-13 Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA results for engagement.........................72

4-14 Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA results for confidence.......................... 73

4-15 Group paired ANCOVA results for impact of YAP program ...............................74

4-16 Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA results for commitment........................ 75

4-17 Group paired ANCOVA results for importance of personal involvement within
the com m unity ....................................................... ............................. 76

4-18 Group paired ANCOVA results for plans for continued involvement within the
com m unity ........... ...... ............ .. .. ................................... 77











ANCOVA

ANOVA

CYD

DOH

EYSC

HR

IIRS

LL

OMK

USDA

YAP

YEAH!


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Analysis of Covariance

Analysis of Variance

Community Youth Development

Department of Health

Engaging Youth, Serving Communities

Health Rocks! curriculum

Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale

Learning and Leading curriculum

Operation Military Kids program

United States Department of Agriculture

Youth-Adult Partnerships

Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

AN EVALUATION OF YOUTH-ADULT PARTNERSHIPS IN
FLORIDA 4-H YOUTH PROGRAMS

By

Jessica L. Kochert

August 2010

Chair: Joy Jordan
Major: Family, Youth and Community Sciences

The past two decades have seen an increase in the desire to build genuine,

effective partnerships between youth and adults, focused on addressing the needs and

concerns of both within community-based youth programs. One result from this focus

has been the development of the Youth-Adult Partnership (YAP) model. Within the

Florida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement the YAP model.

While these programs have been implemented over the past five years within Florida,

no evaluation had yet been performed on the effectiveness of this programming model

for participants within the state. This research sought to identify the impact of various

levels of Youth-Adult Partnership experience and training on levels of involvement and

quality of interactions within the partnership, as well as potential for continued

engagement within the community. Three groups of youth were identified within this

study: 1) those who participated in YAP training and who facilitated YAP experiences

within their communities, 2) those who believe they facilitated YAP experiences within

their communities without having participated in a state-led YAP training program, and

3) those who had never participated in either a state-led YAP training nor facilitated any

YAP experiences within their community.









Results indicate that youth who were trained in the YAP model were significantly

more likely to perceive the levels of youth involvement within the project more positively

than either of their counterparts those who only facilitated YAP opportunities and

those who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Trained youth

also showed significantly higher perceptions regarding the levels of adult involvement

and quality of interactions between youth and adults than those who only facilitated YAP

opportunities without YAP training. In regards to potential for continued community

engagement, youth who were trained in the YAP model scored both their confidence

level following participation and their perception of the importance of personal

involvement within the community significantly higher than those youth who neither

received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Therefore, strong indications exist in

support of Walker's Theory of Intentionality through the significant increases that

occurred between the groups as more intentional program training and opportunities

were provided.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background

It is often said that children are our future. They are the ones who will soon be

responsible for making crucial decisions about what our communities and nation will

become; they define our tomorrow. Yet the youth of today are faced with more

challenges than previous generations, and most are allowed to simply haphazardly

meander through their existence without any true purpose or direction and without the

building of foundational skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, leadership, or

commitment to causes outside of themselves. Brendtro, Brokenleg, and Van Bockern

(1990) stated that, "The evolution of North American culture has placed young people in

a powerless situation, in which they have no meaningful role in society. Persons without

a sense of autonomy come to see themselves as pawns in a world where others control

their destiny" (p. 41). They simply exist in a world run by adults for adults waiting for the

day that they too will be deemed capable of making meaningful contributions to their

world.

The failure of communities to engage their citizenship in total civic engagement is,

unfortunately, all too common (Jones, 2004; Wolff, 2001). This lack of engagement is

especially true of those impacted most by the decision-making process, such as at-risk

families and youth (Jones, 2004). In addition to this failure of engagement on the part of

communities, adults within these communities have also been found to be, at best,

ambivalent about youth and their potential to fill roles of leadership within their

communities (Guzman, Lippman, Moore, & O'Hare, 2003; Jones, 2004; Jones &

Perkins, 2006; Zeldin, 2000). Over the past several decades, a shift has occurred in the









presence of parents in the lives of their children, many of whom are either being raised

in single-parent or multiple-income households. This change, in addition to the decline

of extended family and friendly neighborhoods, has led to an increasingly vulnerable

generation of youth (Brendtro et al., 1990). The only setting in which ongoing, long-term

youth-adult relationships are being provided to all youth is found within the educational

system (Brendtro et al., 1990). However most relationships formed in this setting are

often impersonal, where "students and teachers do not relate to one another as whole

persons, but in narrow circumscribed roles" (Brendtro et al., 1990, p. 10), and are prone

to deterioration over the progression of time as the youth moves through each

subsequent level of the educational system (Benson, Williams, & Johnson, 1987). This

lack of meaningful, satisfying relationships between youth and adults gives light to the

growing importance and need for positive youth development programs designed to

establish and maintain relationships between youth and adults within the community

while developing a wide range of skills necessary for both present and future success.

According to Zeldin (2000), the field of positive youth development finds its

strongest historical roots in non-profit, community-based youth organizations such as

4-H, Boys and Girls Club, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America. Many of

these programs provide by their very nature frequent, positive youth-adult exchanges

through regular interactions. Recent developments within several of these programs

have begun to place an increasing importance on the invaluable contributions youth can

make now in their local communities. These opportunities provide a stark contrast to

other findings within the realm of youth development, such as those reported by Benson

in which youth have reported the role of serving as positive contributors within their









communities as "among the least common experiences for young people today" (as

cited in Jones, 2004, p. 1). Through the adoption of programmatic models designed

specifically to enrich youth-adult relationships, some of these programs have

concurrently built the skills and relationships necessary for youth to become strong,

capable leaders of tomorrow through the use of youth-adult partnerships.

The 2007 Youth-Adult Partnerships in Community Decision Making reports, "Youth

participation the direct involvement of youth in shaping the direction and operation of

their programs, organizations, communities is perhaps the most innovative practice

that has emerged from the field of positive youth development" (National 4-H Council,

2007b, p. 1). Out of this concept of youth participation has emerged the building of

genuine, effective partnerships between youth and adults for the addressing of needs

and concerns from both sets of members (National 4-H Council, 2007b). Youth-adult

partnerships have been a distinguishing part of the 4-H Program since the inception of

the program at the turn of the 20th century as researchers from state land-grant colleges

and universities, in corroboration with the United States Department of Agriculture,

sought to illuminate "the potential of young people to change their rural communities for

the better" (National 4-H Council, 2007b, p. iii).

While great changes have occurred over the last century, the 4-H Program has

faithfully continued in its mission to reach out to the youth of the day with opportunities

to become tomorrow's leaders through the skills they learn today. No matter the

program area, the 4-H Program seeks to build leaders through skills in leadership, self-

discipline, and critical thinking. Programs based on the youth-adult partnership model









reinforce those crucial skills as youth learn to become confident contributors within their

communities through the formation of partnerships with local adults to accomplish

certain objectives. "These partnerships are essential to ensuring that youth learn

through opportunities in which they master life challenges, cultivate independence with

the guidance of caring adults, gain senses of belonging within a positive group, and

share their spirits of generosity towards others" (National 4-H Council, 2007b, p. iii).

Problem Statement

According to Camino (2000), youth-adult partnerships are multidimensional,

consisting of three dimensions: principles and values, which give direction to the

relationship while guiding behavior; sets of skills and competencies designed to focus

behaviors; and a method through which collective action may be implemented and

achieved. Within the Florida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement

the youth-adult partnership (YAP) model. These programs include "Health Rocks!" (HR),

Operation: Military Kids (OMK), Learning and Leading (LL), Youth Empowered

Ambassadors for Health ("YEAH!"), and Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC).

This research seeks to identify the effectiveness of these youth-adult partnerships within

the Florida 4-H Youth Development Program. Two distinct groups were identified for

comparison including 1) those that have participated in both YAP training and

opportunities, and 2) those that participated in other 4-H leadership opportunities (such

as Executive Board) but had not participated in any YAP training. This research would

then examine the quality of youth-adult partnerships within the Florida 4-H programs as

well as the relationships between each of these groups and:









* the levels of civic engagement;

* the perceived quality interactions between youth and adults; and

* the potential for continued engagement within the community upon completion of
the program.

Research Questions

RQ 1 How do levels of involvement differ between youth who have participated in

various levels of YAP experiences?

RQ 2 How does perceived quality of interactions between youth and adults differ

between youth who have participated in various levels of YAP experiences?

RQ 3 How does the potential for continued community engagement differ

between youth who have participated in various levels of YAP experiences?

Hypotheses

H1 Youth who have specifically participated in youth-adult partnership training

within the Florida 4-H YAP programs between 2004 and 2009 will exhibit higher levels

of involvement than those youth who have not been trained in the youth-adult

partnership model.

H2 Youth who have specifically participated in youth-adult partnership training

will report higher perceived quality of interactions between youth and adults within their

program than those youth who have not been trained in the youth-adult partnership

model.

H3 Youth who have specifically participated in youth-adult partnership training

will exhibit higher potential for continued community engagement than those youth who

have not been trained in the youth-adult partnership model.









Limitations


The samples taken within this study were limited to only those YAP training

participants who had valid personal e-mail addresses on file and those non-YAP

participants who attended the second 2009-2010 Executive Board meeting. The choice

to not include 4-H members without leadership roles was made at the discretion of the

researcher. Some youth within this study participated in YAP programs over five years

ago. This historical issue could cloud memories of involvement and interactions,

causing some validity within the reported data.

Definition of Terms

4-H A non-formal youth development program, implemented
through a partnership between the United States Department
of Agriculture and land-grant universities. Offered to youth
ages 5 to 18 years old, this program utilizes an experiential
learning model through which youth learn by doing.

ADULT Individual whose age was greater than 18, and no longer
qualified for membership as a 4-H member at the time of
participation in a youth-adult partnership.


ADVISORY
COMMITTEE



COLLABORATION





CONTINUED COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT


CONTRIBUTORY MEMBER


LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT


An opportunity presented within a youth-adult partnership
model which allows youth and adult teams to plan and
implement programs of interest based on issues identified
within the community.

Occurs when both adults and youth are included within the
decision-making process, at least on some level.
Collaborations allow the non-dominant group to receive some
voice on the direction and implementation of programming
decisions, though final say remains with the dominant group.

The perceived level of impact and commitment to the
community of youth based on their youth-adult partnership
experience.

A role within a youth-adult interaction in which a youth feels
they have a true voice in the discussion and outcome.

The perceived and actual level of active involvement for youth
or adult within a youth-adult partnership setting.









PLANNING COMMITTEE




PARTNERSHIP







QUALITY OF INTERACTION


TEACHING TEAM



TOKEN MEMBER




YOUTH


YAP EXPERIENCE



YAP FACILITATION
OPPORTUNITY


YOUTH-ADULT
PARTNERSHIP TRAINING


An opportunity presented within a youth-adult partnership
model which encourages youth and adult teams to utilize
decision-making skills to plan a specific event or activity within
the community.

Occurs when the relationship between youth and adults allows
for the opportunity to partner together in a balanced harmony
of power and voice in order to reach a desired set of goals
through civic engagement, program planning and/or
community development initiatives. This balanced harmony of
power demands equal potential in making decisions, utilizing
skills, mutual learning, and promoting change.

The perceived quality of interactions between youth and adult
within a youth-adult partnership setting.

An opportunity presented within a youth-adult partnership
model which allows youth and adult teams to educate others
within the community on a pertinent issue.

A role within a youth-adult interaction in which a youth feels
they do not have a true voice in the discussion and outcome.
Instead, the youth feels they are simply there to provide the
perception of inclusion for the youth voice in a situation.

Individual whose age was between 11 and 18 and who
qualified for membership as a 4-H member during their
participation in a youth-adult partnership.

The culmination of training and/or facilitation opportunities
that a youth or adult has been able to participate in within a
youth -adult partnership setting.

A setting in which youth and adults are able to apply the skills
they have learned while working within a youth-adult
partnership model.

A setting in which both sets of participants, youth and adults,
receive specialized training on how to function within a youth-
adult partnership model.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

From Positive Youth Development to Community Youth Development

At every level of government, from local to international, the past two decades

have seen increased attention being placed on the field of youth development as it

relates to the potential of transforming the lives of youth (Delgado, 2002). Within this,

various movements have begun to acknowledge and comprehend the merit in utilizing

youth and other local assets in order to improve the lives of youth as well as the

community as a whole. In 1999, World Sources Online reported that the United Nations

has even recognized the use of youth development strategies as an effective method

for achieving both youth and community potential (as cited in Delgado, 2002). This

emergence of youth engagement in the realm of the local community has made a way

for the field of youth development to broaden the potential for change at both the family

and community level (Delgado, 2002). However, in order to better understand the true

nature of this emerging field of community youth development, it is necessary to retrace

the evolution of the field while gaining a clearer understanding of the definitions which

framed the field as it evolved over the past twenty years.

According to Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins (2002), Americans

have, over the past half century, slowly begun to realize that childhood and adolescence

are special periods of growth and development in a young person's life, requiring an

increased sense of responsibility for attention and care of these youth. The 1950s and

early 1960s saw the beginning of this movement, where this care was interpreted as a

response to the various crises being faced. Youth issues such as juvenile violence,

delinquent and antisocial behaviors, academic failure, substance abuse, and teenage









pregnancy (e.g. Agee, 1979; Clarke & Cornish, 1978; Cooper, Altman, Brown, &

Czechowicz, 1983; DeLeon & Ziegenfuss, 1986; Friedman & Beschner, 1985; Gold &

Mann, 1984) were on the rise, becoming more and more prevalent within all strands of

society (Catalano et al., 2002). As a response, researchers, academics, practitioners,

and policy makers in the field designed programs, services, and policies in an attempt to

reduce the occurrences and impacts of these issues on youth through various

prevention approaches focused on support of youth before the emergence of

problematic behaviors (Catalano et al., 2002). However, most of these preventative

programs were singular in focus, designed to address single problematic behavior

rather than treating the child holistically (Catalano et al., 2002). This mindset is captured

in the typological spectrum of adult attitudes as described by Lofquist (1989). This

spectrum describes youth as being viewed by adults as objects, recipients, or

resources.

Prevention strategies underwent a slow evolution over the next several decades

as programs were evaluated for effectiveness and empirical findings from various

studies and theoretical frameworks began to be applied within the programming

(Catalano et al., 2002). Dryfoos (1990) and Jessor and Jessor (1977) are a few classic

examples of this prevention orientation. Important predictors for problem behaviors in

youth, coupled with decision-making theories such as the Theory of Reasoned Action

(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the Health Belief Model (Janz &

Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988), continued to drive the

evolutionary process within the prevention programming of the 1970s and 1980s.









However, during the 1980s these efforts came under increased scrutiny as

researchers and practitioners began to realize the confounding nature of various

problems as well as predictors that emerged as common across several behavior sets

(Catalano et al., 2002). A greater understanding of the relationships youth have with the

environment (including predictors and interactions), coupled with the push for the

integration of positive youth development in the areas of social, emotional, behavioral,

and cognitive development, led to dramatic changes during the late 1980s and early

1990s (Catalano et al., 2002).

The early 1990s brought out one substantial contributor to this new paradigm,

Emmy Werner (Delgado, 2002). Out of their longitudinal study in Hawaii, Werner and

her colleagues discovered high-risk children who were not only able to overcome

substantial socioeconomic barriers, but to thrive within that setting. From these findings

emerged an important new concept in the field of youth development resiliency.

Resiliency, defined as "a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the

context of significant adversity" (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000, p. 543), refers to

those factors which aid youth in rebounding in the face of stressors or adversity. In other

words, resiliency refers to the set of protective factors within a person that act as

moderators for reactions to stressful situations or chronic adversity in an attempt to

adapt more successfully than if those factors were not present (Werner, 1995). From

her work, Werner (1995) categorized these factors into three groups: (1) individual

attributes, such as being engaging, as well as having strong communication and

problem-solving skills, talents and hobbies, and faith in personal worth; (2) the family,

which can be accomplished through a strong bond with a single family member; and









(3) the community, provided through networks of support systems that reinforce and

reward the abilities of those youth. Delgado (2002) further delineates Werner's factors

into two supplemental categories, resiliency factors (those which are internal to the

individual) and environmental factors (external).

The positive youth development movement of the early 1990s was also enriched

through the early and ongoing research of the Search Institute, which revealed a clearer

understanding of and need for the identification and enhancement of assets youth

possess. Based on extensive research in resiliency and youth development, the

Developmental Assets framework of the Search Institute represents those factors

(i.e. relationships, opportunities, and personal qualities) which youth need in order limit

the impact of risk in their lives. According to Scales and Leffert (1999), the quantity of

assets youth have is inversely correlated with the likelihood of engaging in high-risk

behaviors. In other words, youth are more likely to avoid high-risk behaviors and,

instead, thrive when more assets are present. Through extensive research, the Search

Institute has identified forty assets which have been divided into two categories, each

having four subsets (Scales & Leffert, 1999). Similar to Werner's environmental factors,

youth potentially have external assets which are provided to youth by families,

individuals or communities and include 1) support, 2) empowerment, 3) boundaries and

expectations, and 4) constructive use of time (Scales & Leffert, 1999). The second set

of assets, in line with Werner's internal resiliency factors, include 1) commitment to

learning, 2) positive values, 3) social competencies, and 4) positive identity (Scales &

Leffert, 1999). While this research has become foundational in youth development, it is

important to note that though assets do increase the likelihood of success, they do not









guarantee success (Delgado, 2002). However, the decades of extensive research on

youth resiliency laid the foundation for the future evolution of the positive youth

development movement.

Finally, in an attempt to capture the yet undefined latent constructs that made up

the emerging field of positive youth development, researchers such as Little (1993),

Eccles and Gootman (2002), and Lerner (2004) reviewed the available evidence from

the research and practice of positive youth development. From that data they identified

what have come to be known as the six Cs competence, confidence, connection,

character, caring/compassion, and contribution (Lerner et al., 2005). Each of these six

Cs plays a crucial role in "understanding the goals and outcomes of community-based

programs aimed at enhancing youth development" (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 22). In the

2005 article, Lerner et al. defined the six Cs as follows:

Competence: Positive views of one's actions in domain specific areas
including social, academic, cognitive, and vocational.
Confidence: An internal sense of overall positive self-worth and self-
efficacy.
Connection: Positive bonds with people and institutions that are reflected
in bidirectional exchanges between the individual and peers, family, school,
and community in which both parties contribute to the relationship.
Character: Respect for societal and cultural rules, possession of standards
for correct behaviors, a sense of right and wrong (morality), and integrity.
Caring/Compassion: A sense of sympathy and empathy for others.
Connection: Enacting the behaviors of the previous five Cs in order to
contribute positively to self, family, community, and, ultimately, civil society.
(p. 23)

It is within each of these developments that the framework for community youth

development has emerged (Villarruel, Perkins, Borden, & Keith, 2003).

Community Youth Development (CYD) A Definition

Youth violence has repeatedly shocked the nation over the past several decades.

From violent acts on family members to youth turning on each other and themselves,









communities have searched in desperation for effective solutions to create

environments that promote the positive and healthy development of all youth (Villarruel

et al., 2003). Although these communities have identified the need for embracing the

precepts of positive youth development, many continue to demonstrate a limited

understanding of the necessary factors which must be present in order to create a

community environment that truly promotes positive youth development in all young

people (Villarruel et al., 2003). This limited understanding displayed by many

communities is often deeply rooted in past utilization of deficit or prevention models of

yesteryear, which targeted youth who were dealing with specific problematic or high-risk

behaviors, rather than preparing all youth to meet the challenges of today and

tomorrow. The effective preparation of youth in meeting these challenges requires

communities to provide the foundations necessary for making decisions in order to

promote their own positive development, which occur through youth engagement in

opportunities for developing "positive relationships, skills, competencies and attitudes

that will assist them in making positive choices for their lives" (Villarruel et al., 2003,

p. 3).

During the 1990s, several key phrases began ringing out this challenge throughout

communities. The first phrase was "problem-free is not fully prepared" (Benson &

Pittman, 2001, p. 5, Villarruel et al., 2003). This phrase brought to light the fact that,

while youth participation in deficit programming may result in "problem free" children,

these youth remained limited due to the lack of proper preparation for becoming well-

rounded, productive citizens. Subsequently, the phrase "Fully prepared isn't fully

participating" began to emerge as academics and practitioners began to question why









those same youth were thought to be ineligible for active engagement until their

adulthood (Villarruel et al., 2003; Pittman, 2000). According to Villarruel et al. (2003),

youth need to be engaged "as partners in their own development and in the

development of their community" (p. 3).

It was during this same time period that the phrase "Community Youth

Development," coined by the National Network for Youth, began greatly affecting the

field of youth development (Hughes & Curnan, 2000). Powered by the belief that

communities can become healthy places for youth to grow up through adults and youth

working together, programs and policies began to see change. While the focus of some

researchers and applied scholars rested on the identification of those elements critical

for youth in making authentic contributions as members of society (i.e., Benson, 1997;

Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Lerner, 1995, 2002), others were interested in

the integration of positive youth development and community development as a means

for these contributions (Hughes & Curnan, 2000; Villarruel et al., 2003; Pittman, 2000).

Numerous authors have attempted to capture in words the spirit of community

youth development (i.e. Villarruel et al., 2003; Delgado, 2000). Villarruel et al. (2003)

defined community youth development as:

purposely creating environments that provide constructive, affirmative, and
encouraging relationships that are sustained over time with adults and
peers, while concurrently providing an array of opportunities that enable
youth to build their competencies and become engaged partners in their
own development as well as the development of their communities. (p. 6)

The creation of such environments and opportunities has received growing attention

throughout the research community. In their book, Community Programs to Promote

Youth Development, Eccles and Gootman (2002) substantiate this need for various

opportunities as "Adolescents who spend time in communities that are rich in









developmental opportunities experience less risk and show evidence of higher rates of

positive development" (p. 11). Therefore, built on various and multiple interactions of

youth within their local community, the relationships and competencies formed during

this type of process provide youth with the tools they need to become effective,

engaged members of their community. These ideas of multiple interactions,

relationships and competencies lead us into the theoretical underpinnings of the theory

of developmental intentionality.

The Theory of Developmental Intentionality Defined

According to Walker, Marczak, Blyth, and Borden (2005), the theory of

developmental intentionality is based on three key precepts which govern the

effectiveness of youth engagement within community youth-based programs. First,

programs are deemed most effective when attention is given to the long-term

developmental outcomes throughout both programmatic design and philosophy of

involved youth workers (Walker et al., 2005). This manifests itself as program leaders

and youth workers seek to create intentionally designed learning opportunities which

encourage youth to be active participants in helping to shape themselves, rather than

simply being shaped by the adults in the program. These learning opportunities are

deliberate and strategic, designed to maximize the desired developmental outcomes

within the program, while remaining thoughtful and responsive to the needs of the youth

being served. Intentionality may manifest itself through "a series of goal, plans or

actions to achieve identified outcomes" (Walker et al., 2005, p. 402), which, in turn, can

assist both youth and adults in achieving a shared sense of purpose, direction, and

goals. Therefore, unlike youth programming models which seek to intentionally shape

youth into some mold, the theory of developmental intentionality proposes the









intentional shaping of the learning opportunities in an attempt to achieve the desired

long-term outcomes.

The intentional design described above leads to the second precept, which is

based on the concept that youth are more likely to achieve the desired outcomes when

actively engaged in the process as collaborators rather than simply recipients (Walker et

al., 2005). Engagement, "the extent to which young people are involved, interested, and

enthusiastic about what they are doing" (Walker, 2006, p. 76), delves far beyond mere

participation in learning opportunities. Rather, engagement can refer to deep interest or

passion for one singular activity or involvement over a longer period of time in the

context of a larger learning experience. According to Walker et al. (2005), "when a

young person stays engaged for an extended period of time, the chance of optimizing

the achievement of developmental outcomes increases" (p. 403). While no specific

amount of time or intensity of involvement has been determined to provide optimal

outcomes, Walker et al. (2005) suggest that practical wisdom would suggest that

participation that is intermittent or short-term in nature would not provide the same level

of outcome manifestation as those who are engaged in longer-term participation.

Engagement, in turn, points to the final precept in which the engagement of youth

in this process results from a good fit between the youth and the intentional learning

opportunities found within the first precept (Walker et al., 2005). According to the theory,

as intentionality is placed into the design of a program an increase will occur in the

goodness of fit between the participating youth and the program, which, in turn, leads to

increased engagement by the youth (Walker et al., 2005). Furthermore, Walker et al.









(2005) suggest that "when a program is well aligned to an individual's needs and to a

group's needs, it creates a force for increased engagement" (p. 404).

In addition to these three precepts, the theory of developmental intentionality

suggests that intentionality is guided by six principles which define the ethos of positive

youth development. This ethos of positive youth development "represents a

fundamental commitment to how one works with youth a commitment that permeates

how one things and how one operates" (Walker et al., 2005, p.404). Therein lay the six

principles that drive the ethos. First, programs which are functioning within this ethos

recognize the need for programming to be built on basic youth needs (Walker, 2006).

These crucial needs, originally outlined by Konopka (1973), include: generating a sense

of safety and structure, experiencing active participation and belonging, making

meaningful contributions which in turn generate an increase in self-worth, developing

quality relationships with others, discovering themselves through experimentation,

promoting communication especially around conflicting values as they seek to create

their own set of values and beliefs, feeling the pride and competence that comes with

the mastery of a subject or activity, and a belief that life can be enjoyed and successful

(Walker et al., 2005). Next, programs which provide youth with choice and flexibility

within their learning opportunities are positioned to increase the engagement and

responsibility of youth in their own learning and development as they navigate according

to their personal level of participation, personal beliefs of leadership, and abilities for

making a contribution (McLaughlin, 2000; Walker et al., 2005). Third, this ethos

supports an integration of learning opportunities within the program with everyday life,

encouraging involvement in activities which promote "real work, service learning, and









contributions to family and community" (Walker et al., 2005, p. 80). The fourth principle

promotes a positive asset-based approach when interacting with youth, rather than the

traditional mindset of correcting what is "wrong with them" (Walker et al., 2005).

While each of the above four principles are important for the success of intentional

youth programming, it is especially within the fifth and sixth principles that two crucial

principles for the creation of programming designs which seek to utilize a youth-adult

partnership model are uncovered. The fifth principle holds that youth benefit most when

learning opportunities are fashioned from a comprehensive, holistic approach, rather

than a piecemealed, fragmented series of events or activities (Walker et al., 2005). In

response to contemporary research literature which suggested that youth who

participate in out-of-school opportunities which met certain criteria tended to benefit

developmentally (e.g. Blum & Rinehart, 2001; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Larson, 2000),

Walker et al. (2005) made a call for learning opportunities to be multiple, sequential, and

integrated while promoting respectful, caring relationships, activities which are both

relevant, safe, stimulating, and pedagogically appropriate, and contextual connections

to the lives of the participants. The sixth, and final, principle within this ethos suggests

that both learning and development are enhanced when an active co-creation occurs

between the youth and adults who are participating in the learning opportunity, thus

providing shared leadership and power between the two (Walker et al., 2005). Walker et

al. (2005) suggested that, while ideas such as co-creation, shared leadership, and

youth-adult partnerships are often claimed to be present within the design of youth

programming, these are seldom ever manifested, either consistently or well, within the

confines of the learning opportunities due to significant, but practical challenges faced









within the program. These challenges can include a lack of understanding by adults on

how to share power with youth, limitations on time and resources, lack of clarity

regarding program intentions, and what seem to be limitless questions on the value of

involving youth within the development and implementation process (Walker et al.,

2005). Addressing these issues is therefore critical to the success of programs seeking

to implement a youth-adult partnership.

Problematic Perceptions of Youth and Adults: A History of Youth-Adult
Relationships

The manner in which youth are viewed by the community around them has roots

deep in both historical precedents and perceptions. According to Fass (2004), most of

history does not acknowledge adolescence as an independent stage of life. Instead,

scholars such as Aristotle limited life to three distinct periods: childhood, youth, and old

age, while the Romans applied the term child to almost anyone without a consideration

of age (Fass, 2004). Throughout the writings and literature from the Middle Ages well

into the early modern period in Europe, the amount with which childhood experiences

were recounted or shared was extremely limited (Heywood, 2001). This general

absence of childhood and youth from these forms of written documentation speak to the

prevailing concept of the times: youth are marginal figures in an adult world (Heywood,

2001). Medieval scholar James Schultz (1995) attributed this absence to the prevailing

perception of youth as imperfect adults, deficient and subordinate and therefore of little

interest to the adult writers of the times. This perception began to slowly evolve within

the agrarian world of 18th century Europe as young people began to emerge as

important, viable contributors to the family economy while remaining part of a semi-

dependent structure in which the contributions made were subject to the strict control of









adults (Fass, 2004). It was also during this time that adults began to express concerns

over both emotional and behavioral problems being exhibited by youth and sought to

identify methods for preparing youth for future roles in both the family and community

(Fass, 2004). This concept of childhood being the preparation ground for adulthood

continued well into the mid 20th century, laced heavily with the ongoing perceptions of

youth as deficient members of a community in need of an education that will transform

them into rational, mature, competent adults (Heywood, 2001).

Current Trends in Youth-Adult Relationships

The manner in which adults have viewed, treated, and interacted with youth has

continued to evolve throughout the 20th and 21st century, especially impacting the field

of youth development, where adults work closely with youth to create an environment in

which optimal development may occur. In addition to the concept of optimal youth

development, an increasing vision for recognizing and valuing youth participation in

leadership roles has begun to emerge. In his work, Roger Hart (1997) proposed a

model to better explain the role that youth may choose to take in leadership

opportunities, based on their skills and abilities. According to Hart's (1997) ladder, there

are eight degrees of participation that a youth may be engaged. The bottom three rungs

provide "participation opportunities" that, in actuality, are based on the will of the adults

involved; therefore, the bottom three rungs (manipulation, decoration, and tokenism)

actually portray situations in which there is non-participation by youth. Moving up Hart's

ladder, the role of youth continues to become more autonomous, with participation

ranging from being assigned, yet informed, about their particular roles for service by

adults to shared decision-making with adults in settings that were initiated by adults.

The final two rungs of Hart's (1997) ladder has programming and project focuses









initiated by youth, with the top level incorporating shared decision-making between

youth and adults, rather than the simple supportive involvement of the previous rung.

Complementary to Hart's work, Mitra's (2002) pyramid model attempts to create a

hierarchical order for the various forms of student (youth) voice. Based in the context of

the traditional school setting rather than community-based youth programming, Mitra's

concept of "student voice" revolves around the potential of youth to share their voice on

a wide range of areas affecting the school. This voice can be found in the youths' simple

opinions of possible problems and solutions to more complex and active collaborations

with adults who are in the process of trying to solve the problems being faced within the

schools. Mitra's (2002) pyramid consists of three levels: information, collaboration, and

autonomy. The information level, found at the bottom of the hierarchy, limits youth to

simply providing information that adults then interpret for meaning without further input

from youth. At the collaboration level, however, youth are allowed to increase their role

through active engagement in the process as they join in collaborative efforts with adults

to not only define the problems, but to also interpret the data and then take action in

order to promote change. Finally, at the top of the pyramid, youth demonstrate a level of

autonomy as they are allowed to work independent of adult direction as they seek to

research and solve problems.

As Jones (2004) points out, both Hart's ladder and Mitra's pyramid attempt to

explain the potential utilization of youth skills and increases in autonomy in leadership

roles. However, each model also displays limitations when used to examine the role of

youth in certain leadership roles. Hart's model focuses on the roles of youth in the

participation process, without placing an emphasis on the importance of adult









interactions within the process itself. While Mitra's model does emphasize the role of

youth-adult collaborations, the contextual setting of schools and classrooms can limit

the validity of these classifications when examining community-based programs, which

tend to be much more varied.

Instead, Jones and Perkins (2006) developed a model to specifically target youth-

adult relationships within community efforts. Focused on individual choices, the

Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships categorizes the levels of youth and adult

involvement into five key programming types including those with: adult-centered

leadership, adult-led collaborations, youth-adult partnerships, youth-led collaborations,

and youth-centered leadership (Jones & Perkins, 2006). Either end of this continuum

contains programming models that exclude active input from the non-dominant

participants. For example, programs that invoke an adult-centered leadership model

would be completely conceived and driven by adults, without any input from youth as to

the nature or direction of programming decisions (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). A common

example of this model can be found within the current system of education, as teachers,

administrators, and politicians decide what youth should be learning throughout their

eight hours each day. At the other extreme is the youth-centered leadership model. This

model is limited in potential outlets for implementation within structured environments

since youth often must include adults in the management of facilities and procurement

of necessary supplies for such endeavors (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). When both adults

and youth are included, at least on some level, collaborations occur. Collaborations

allow the non-dominant group to receive some voice on the direction and

implementation of programming decisions, though final say remains with the dominant









group (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). Finally, the model located at the center of the

continuum provides both groups of participants the opportunity to partner together in a

balanced harmony of power and voice in order to reach a desired set of goals (Jones &

Perkins, 2005a). This model is referred to as the youth-adult partnership.

Youth-Adult Partnerships: A Definition

The world is currently awash with ideas of collaboration and partnerships. From

inter-organizational relationships which intend to achieve the shared goals of

participants (Jae-Nam, & Young-Gul, 1999) to a relationship defined through the

existence of differences of participating partners which generates potentially viable

synergy (Mackintosh, 1992), definitions for the concept of a partnership are as diverse

as the groups attempting to implement them. In the realm of positive youth

development, one definition for partnerships involves engagement in a process

designed to allow every participant (both youth and adult) the opportunity to make both

suggestions and decisions and in which the contribution of each party is recognized and

valued (Norman, 2001). This concept of youth-adult partnerships is not new; however, it

has only been recently that professionals in the field of positive youth development have

sought to understand the role that this programmatic model might play in furthering the

positive development of today's youth (Jones & Perkins, 2006).

At its simplest, a youth-adult partnership provides an opportunity for adults to work

in concert with young people in an attempt to either address current issues, policies, or

programmatic needs impacting youth. However, as is evident throughout recent youth

development literature, understandings and implementation of youth-adult partnerships

vary. Some literature presented the youth-adult partnership as a setting in which groups

of youth work with a couple adults who have assumed the role of facilitator, charged









with the role of creating a safe environment for authentic youth participation (Denner,

Meyer, & Bean, 2005). Others, such as Panitz (1996) suggested that youth-adult

partnerships are evidence of a collaborative process which highlights individual

members' abilities and contributions in the midst of shared authority, responsibility and

decision making (as cited in Jones, 2004). Furthering this definition, Camino (2000)

identified specific concepts necessary for generating genuine youth-adult partnerships

including mutuality and equality between youth and adults, continual opportunities for

the development of crucial skills and competencies, and genuine, active participation by

the youth. Through legitimate opportunities in which a safe environment has been

created in which various skills and competencies are built and decision-making power in

program activities and community initiatives is guaranteed, youth are able to actively

participate and become civically engaged within their community.

The ultimate goal of these partnerships is for youth to become authentic

contributors to their community, involved in a wide range of activities including:

conducting needs assessments for the local community; raising funds through grant

writing and other means for various community outreach endeavors; designing and

implementing new programming complete with the training of staff, delivery of services,

and evaluation of program effectiveness; and promoting ideas and projects for

addressing issues such as health and nutrition, homelessness, safety, and the

environment (National 4-H Council, 2007a). In fact, several organizations currently

thrive in their commitment to bringing youth to the decision-making table (e.g.,

Innovation Center's At The Table Initiative, Philadelphia Student Union, Youth On

Board, YouthBuild USA) (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). This engagement of youth as









important contributors within their community leads to the establishment of stronger

communities (Camino, 2000).

Jones and Perkins (2005a) reiterated the necessary foundations of the youth-adult

partnership within their operational definition:

Youth-Adult Partnerships: A fostered relationship between youth and
adults where both parties have equal potential in making decisions, utilizing
skills, mutual learning, and promoting change through civic engagement,
program planning and/or community development initiatives. (Jones &
Perkins, 2005a, p.1161)

Therefore, genuine youth-adult partnerships require equal potential in making decisions,

building of crucial skill sets, and learning opportunities, metered with an appreciation

and value for the individual strengths and contributions that can be made by each

participant. Within this operational definition, Jones and Perkins (2005a) also delineated

other criteria for participation in youth-adult partnerships. According to this definition, the

creation of an effective partnership requires the existence of specific skill sets (e.g.,

decision making, commitment, responsibility, and a strong work ethic). Therefore, based

on the abilities of youth to demonstrate and perform these skills, youth within a youth-

adult partnership would be between the ages of 12 and 18, while adults would be

classified as individuals over the age of 19 (Jones & Perkins, 2005a).

Youth-Adult Partnerships within Florida 4-H

The Florida 4-H program efforts to focus on youth-adult partnerships began in

January 2002 with State Conversations. Youth and adults from around the state,

representing all congressional districts, ethnic groups and diverse Florida communities,

came together to discuss issues of importance for local communities throughout the

state. While it was evident within these discussions that 4-H demonstrated a high

capacity for creating opportunities for youth and adult conversations regarding various









community issues, the need to develop and increase youth-adult partnerships for

engaging in active roles for dealing with these issues was identified as a crucial next

step.

In order to address this need, state 4-H personnel applied in fall 2002 for a Rural

Development Grant from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to

participate in Round 1 Funding for Bridging the Gap: Engaging Youth, Serving

Communities. This program would be the impetus for the development of youth-adult

partnership programming across the state. Bridging the Gap identified three main goals

including: undergoing an intensive assessment of the organizational systems currently

in place throughout the state, developing and providing YAP training for youth and

adults who desired to participate in civic governance, and engaging youth in civic

governance within the state organization itself. Before that point in time, the majority of

state 4-H leadership and governance systems in place failed to represent the equal

partnership between youth and adult members as defined within a youth-adult

partnership. Instead, the governance tended to be either youth-centered or adult-

centered leadership. For example, the Florida 4-H Executive Board, at that time, would

have been classified by Jones and Perkins' (2005a) Continuum of Youth-Adult

Relationships as a Youth-Centered Leadership that excluded active input from the non-

dominant participants.

During the first phase of this programming, April 2004, faculty and county

Extension agents were provided training in the youth-adult partnership model using a

core set of curricula from the Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development.

This training has since been repeated over the course of the last five years to provide









continued support for incoming county faculty who may be unfamiliar with the YAP

model and facilitation skills necessary for proper implementation within their community.

To ensure consistent training throughout the state, the resources from Innovation

Center have been utilized within each of the state-led training that have occurred over

the past five years, both for youth and adults.

The second phase of this programming focused on the use of youth-adult

partnerships as a vehicle for increasing the base of youth and volunteer involvement in

civic opportunities within communities throughout the state. Prior to that time, the voice

of youth for Florida 4-H rested within the state council system, which provides youth

who participate in their local county council the opportunity to then go on to represent

their county within their district council, and possibly the option to move on to the state

council or Executive Board via peer-elected positions. This system greatly limits the

number of 4-H youth who can choose to participate in the civic aspects of Florida 4-H.

However, by utilizing the youth-adult partnership model in various program settings,

youth and volunteers who wished to participate in civic opportunities outside of their

county council would be afforded that opportunity. To target these individuals, youth and

volunteers from all counties were invited to participate in the YAP training being

provided.

Over the past five years, several training programs have been implemented within

Florida 4-H designed around the youth-adult partnership (YAP) model. These programs

include "Health Rocks!" (HR), Operation: Military Kids (OMK), Learning and Leading

(LL), Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health ("YEAH!"), and Engaging Youth,

Serving Communities (EYSC). With the introduction of each of these programs, youth









and adults from the targeted counties were invited to participate in a training lasting

from two to four days.

The first of these training, which took place in January 2004, revolved around the

"Health Rocks!" curriculum. "Health Rocks!" is a nationally reviewed and recommended

curriculum designed to promote healthy living among youth ages 8 to 14 years old. The

goal of this program is to bring "youth, families, and communities across the United

States together to reduce tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use by youth" (National 4-H,

2009, p. 3). Youth who are ages 13 and over are able to participate in "Health Rocks!"

as part of a teaching team, which are designed to unite teens and adult as partners in

the pursuit of educating their community on the dangers of engaging in risky health

behaviors. These teens who participate in the training and subsequent facilitation

opportunities are able to "develop and implement community strategies that promote

healthy living choices" (National 4-H, 2009, p.3) while also building "positive, enduring

relationships, with youth involved as full partners" (National 4-H, 2009, p.3). Eleven

counties participated in the 2004 training including: Alachua, Bay, Charlotte, Clay,

Gilchrist, Jefferson, Levy, Liberty, Nassau, Santa Rosa, and Taylor. This resulted in

producing one teaching team per county, with the exception of Santa Rosa, which

produced seven, for a total of seventeen teams.

In addition to implementing the program in their communities, these teaching

teams were provided an opportunity to teach two 1A hour workshops during the State

4-H Youth Congress in July 2004. One workshop focused on the overview of the

"Health Rocks!" program they were engaged in promoting in their communities while the

other workshop provided training about the concept of building a youth-adult









partnership. These sessions intentionally provided the trained teams an opportunity to

promote the program to others in hopes of expanding the program outreach while they

enhanced their youth-adult partnership practices. It was also an intentional method used

to demonstrate the youth-adult teaching team concept to a greater number of youth and

adults simultaneously within the state. There were approximately 550 teens and adults

in attendance and a total of the 16 teams conducting the workshops.

The second training, in August 2004, provided youth with an opportunity to

participate in the U.S. Army's Operation: Military Kids (OMK) program. According to the

OMK Web site, Operation: Military Kids is a collaborative effort between 4-H and the

U. S. Army to support the children and youth impacted by deployment (Huebner,

Mancini, Bowen, & Orthner, 2009). Youth, ages 13 and over, were able to partner with

adults in their county to create teaching teams to raise awareness within their

community about the issues faced by military families affected by deployment. Six

counties participated in the 2004 training Alachua, Duval, Escambia, Jackson, Santa

Rosa, and Walton resulting in the production of one teaching team per county, with

the exception of Escambia and Santa Rosa, which produced six and four teams

respectively, for a total of fourteen teams.

In May of the following year, a third training was provided for youth, this time using

the national Learning and Leading in Civic Engagement curriculum, supported by

trainers from the Learning Innovation Center. While the previous two training promoted

content specific to target audiences, the goal of this training was to provide youth and

adults with a program model that would strengthen overall civic engagement at the

community, county and state level, while promoting positive partnerships between the









participants. Youth from eight counties, ages 13 and over, partnered together with

adults in their community to form train-the-trainer teams. Of the eight counties that

participated in the 2005 training Bradford, Gilchrist, Holmes, Miami-Dade, Palm

Beach, Sarasota, Santa Rosa, and Seminole most resulted in the production of one

teaching team per county, with the exception of Santa Rosa, which produced two

teams, for a total of nine teams.

Following the YAP training experiences from the fall 2004 to spring 2005, each of

the trained teams were again invited to be part of the educational program during the

State 4-H Youth Congress in late July 2005. In addition to implementing the program in

their communities, each of the teaching teams provided at least two 1 12 hour

workshops. The first workshop focused on the overview of either the OMK or Learning

and Leading program. The other workshop provided training about the concept of a

youth-adult partnership. Again, this allowed the teams to demonstrate the youth-adult

teaching team concept to a greater number of youth and adults simultaneously within

the state. Also during the State Youth Congress 2005, another opportunity for youth-

adult partnership teams occurred. Targeted counties with previous youth-adult

partnership experiences were provided the opportunity to bring teams of two youth and

two adults to a forum concerning childhood obesity hosted in partnership with the

Florida Department of Health (DOH). Teams were provided training regarding the issue

and feedback solicited by the Secretary of DOH. As a result of this initiative, a new state

4-H program initiative on Healthy Lifestyles emerged across the state.

In addition to these Congress opportunities, various YAP teams were invited to

provide training at an Executive Board meeting during the respective year to educate









Executive Board members on the content focus for community outreach promoted

through the YAP program, as well as the skills necessary for participating in a true

youth-adult partnership. Many of these sessions were promoting the Healthy Lifestyles

program initiative focused on childhood obesity. In addition to these influence of

training, the system of the state Executive Board was beginning to shift due to the

presence of some youth who participated in the initial YAP training in 2004 and were

now old enough to hold membership on the board. Since then, members of the Florida

4-H Executive Board have since transitioned from a youth-centered leadership with

occasional youth-led collaborations, to a youth-led collaboration which opportunities to

engage in youth-adult partnerships.

During early summer 2006, a second Learning and Leading training was offered

along with a fourth opportunity for teams to facilitate the introduction of the new initiative

on childhood obesity in collaboration with DOH Youth Empowered Ambassadors for

Health ("YEAH!"). "YEAH!" focused attention on healthy lifestyle issues; however, the

spotlight of this program centered on increasing physical activity, reducing screen time,

and making healthier food choices. Youth from nine counties, ages 13 and over,

partnered together with adults in their community to form train-the-trainer teams. Nine

counties were represented at the "YEAH!" Summit by YAP teams Alachua, Flagler,

Liberty, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, Seminole and St. Johns. Again, in

July 2006 the same model of programming as previously used at the State Youth

Congress was implemented with sixteen previously trained YAP teams conducting

training sessions on healthy lifestyles education. Again this was designed intentionally









to continue to expose new youth and volunteers to the youth-adult partnership model as

a way to become engaged in and impact community issues.

The final in-depth program model began in 2005 and has continued to be

implemented in Florida ever since. Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC),

supported by USDA funding, was designed to assist youth in gaining the life skills

needed to become effective leaders within while working in positive partnerships with

adults within their community. Youth, ages 13 and over, represent five counties which

have participated in EYSC over the past five years. Of the five counties who participated

in the EYSC training Bay, Leon, Santa Rosa, Taylor, and Walton each generated

multiple teams within each county.

Currently, the state of Florida continues to support four of the five YAP programs -

EYSC, "YEAH!", OMK, and "Health Rocks!". Training are provided on a regular basis

to youth and adults who wish to participate in these programs; however, sometimes the

current training may not fully capture the essence of a true youth-adult partnership due

to either budget or time constraints. The only program of the remaining four known to

regularly provide sufficient time and funding to support YAP training for youth and

adults within the program is EYSC.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Purpose

Over the past five years, a youth-adult partnership (YAP) model has been

implemented in several programs within the Florida 4-H Youth Development Program.

This study was conducted in order to evaluate the quality of these youth-adult

partnerships within the Florida 4-H Youth Development Program. Specifically, this

research was conducted in order to examine the relationship of intentionality, through

participation in multiple YAP training sessions, on the quality of program

implementation, level of engagement during the program, and intentions to remain

civically engaged within the community following completion of the program. The

following chapter provides the research design, as well as a description of the study

participants and data collection procedures.

Research Design

This study utilized a descriptive, or observational, cross-sectional research design.

Descriptive research is used when the researcher is attempting to systematically

describe "the facts and characteristics of a given population or are of interest, factually

and accurately" (Isaac & Michael, 1971, p. 18). Descriptive research includes survey

studies which are often designed with a purpose:

a) to collect detailed factual information that describes existing phenomena,
b) to identify problems or justify current conditions and practices, c) to make
comparisons and evaluations, and d) to determine what others are doing
with similar problems or situations and benefit from their experience in
making future plans and decisions. (Isaac & Michael, 1971, p. 18)

This type of design allows researchers to probe existing differences between

comparison groups as the relationships between numerous variables are investigated.









In descriptive or observational studies the researcher is not interested in establishing

direct causality, but rather investigating the interrelationships between variables within

each group and determining the strength with which each variable explains the variance

displayed for each of the groups in regards to the outcome variable (de Vaus, 2001).

Therefore, a researcher attempting to determine if two or more variables are related,

often finds it useful to employ a cross-sectional design and often the research question

of the study revolves around the establishment of these relationships (Spector, 1981). A

cross-sectional design collects data at one point in time, then analyzes the data by

examining evident variation between the outcome variable and pertinent group

differences (de Vaus, 2001). Therefore, in an attempt to create an accurate portrayal of

youth-adult partnerships within Florida 4-H Youth Development Programs, a survey

study has been utilized.

Unit of Analysis

One key attribute of youth-adult partnerships is the formation of partnerships.

However, the items posed within this study delve into personal perceptions, interactions,

beliefs, and intentions. It was also believed that too few complete teams could be

located for inclusion in the study. Therefore, in order to generate the strongest answers

to the posed research questions, individuals, rather than YAP teams, will serve as the

unit of analysis for this study.

Population and Sample

In an attempt to identify the effectiveness of youth-adult partnerships within the

Florida 4-H Youth Development Program, two groups were identified for comparison.

The first group included youth who had participated in one of the five youth-adult

partnership training provided through Florida 4-H over the course of the last five years.









These youth were also provided opportunities to practice the techniques taught during

the training sessions through various facilitations within the same five-year time period.

Rosters from the training programs for "Health Rocks!" (HR), Operation: Military Kids

(OMK), Learning and Leading (LL), Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health

("YEAH!"), and Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC) were used to create the

population of participants. Youth who met the above-mentioned criteria were identified

and contact information was collected for them. From the rosters, 145 youth were

identified for inclusion in the sample, with 60 having personal e-mail accounts. A census

sample was then taken of these 60 youth.

A second group, consisting of youth who participated in the Florida 4-H Executive

Board, was identified for comparative purposes. These youth were selected due to

similar characteristics including focused training on and opportunities to practice

leadership and communication skills, interest in participating in community service

projects, opportunities to work closely with adults within projects, and complementary

age ranges and county representation. The majority of youth represented within this

group are currently engaged in the 2009-2010 Florida 4-H Executive Board; however,

several former Executive Board members were also included in the survey process to

help capture approximate counterparts for those youth in the first group who were

members of the first YAP program, and have since graduated. A census sample of 64

youth present during the second 2009-2010 Executive Board meeting was conducted.

Instrument Design

Questionnaires were utilized to collect quantitative data in an attempt to identify

the success of youth-adult partnership programming model within Florida 4-H. The









researcher designed the questionnaire using concepts from relevant literature as well as

an adapted youth-adult partnership scale from Jones (2004).

Permissions were sought from Jones (2004) to incorporate his Involvement and

Interaction Rating Scale as part of this instrument in order to assist in capturing

perceived levels of involvement and quality of interactions present within youth-adult

partnership settings. Using the three sub-scales from Jones' (2004) Involvement and

Interaction Rating Scale, respondents were asked to evaluate their most previous YAP

community project in the areas of youth involvement, adult involvement, and

interactions between the two. Together, these scales created the matrix for youth-adult

relationships as defined by Jones and Perkins (2005b). This data provides insight into

whether the opportunities presented to these youth truly constituted a youth-adult

partnership, or if it would better be defined as some other type of youth-adult

relationship. Youth were asked to compare two contrasting statements related to their

perceptions of various situations from their time in the youth-adult partnership. Then,

using a scale from 1 to 10 that was placed between the two statements, they were to

place their response closest to the statement that best described what they believed to

be true about their youth-adult partnership. The stronger they felt about the response,

the closer to the statement they were instructed to rate the item. According to the testing

performed by Jones on this scale, the Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients for each

of the three sub-scales were as follows: Youth Involvement (.83), Adult Involvement

(.84), and Youth-Adult Interaction (.87). An overall Cronbach's alpha of .94 was also

reported for the instrument as a whole. Results from this survey found corresponding

Cronbach's alpha to be consistent with Jones' results: Youth Involvement (.89), Adult









Involvement (.90), and Youth-Adult Interaction (.94), overall Involvement and Interaction

Rating Scale (.96).

There were four distinct sections within the survey. The first section examined

perceived levels of involvement within youth-adult partnership settings. Data for

participation within YAP training was collected using rosters from each of the five YAP

program training. Youth were then asked to indicate the number of opportunities they

had to facilitate YAP programs within a local community setting for each of the five

program areas "Health Rocks!", OMK, "YEAH!", Learning and Leading, and EYSC

using the six categories available for response: 1) did not facilitate, 2) 1-3 opportunities,

3) 4-6 opportunities, 4) 7-9 opportunities, 5) 10-12 opportunities, and 6) 13 or more

opportunities. Youth were also asked to identify any "other" opportunities they had for

facilitation which they believed also constituted a youth-adult partnership. Youth were

then asked to define their level of involvement through a series of items as they

considered their participation in facilitating YAP programs within their community, as

well as being part of a teaching team, on planning committees, or on boards or advisory

committees. The first two questions in this series asked youth to identify "how many

committees or decision-making boards with youth only members (youth) served on" and

"how many committees or decision-making boards with youth and adult members

(youth) served on" using the following responses categories: 1) none, 2) 1-5

opportunities, 3) 6-10 opportunities, 4) 11-15 opportunities, or 5) 16 or more

opportunities. The third question asked youth to identify "how many public committees

or decision-making boards (i.e. library, school/PTA, fire/rescue, EOC, church/faith-

based, hospital/medical, etc.) served on" using the following responses categories:









1) none, 2) 1-3 opportunities, 3) 4-6 opportunities, 4) 7-9 opportunities, 5) 10-12

opportunities, or 6) 13 or more opportunities. Questions within this section also

requested that respondents convey their personal perceptions about the level of youth

and adult involvement that took place within those various opportunities. Major

contributors to this section were two of the three sub-scales from Jones' (2004)

Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale Youth Involvement and Adult Involvement.

The items on the Youth Involvement sub-scale included: a) responsibilities for specific

tasks or assignments, b) reliance on themselves to make key decisions, c) access to

information needed to make decisions, d) opportunity to discuss concerns with the

group, e) frequency of sharing ideas that mattered to them, f) equality of vote in the

decision-making process, g) commitment to their duties within the project, h) excitement

about their involvement, and i) concern with community change. The items on the Adult

Involvement sub-scale included: a) dividing responsibilities for specific tasks or

assignments, b) reliance on youth to make key decisions, c) providing youth with access

to information needed for make decisions, d) communicating concerns with the group,

e) encouragement of youth to share ideas that mattered to them, f) provision of equal

vote for youth in the decision-making process, g) commitment to their duties within the

project, h) excitement about their involvement, and i) concern with community change.

The second section examined quality of interactions between youth and adults

within youth-adult partnership settings. These questions asked youth to describe the

quality of interactions they had personally had, or witnessed between others, in their

YAP programs as well as while on a teaching team, on planning committees, or on

boards or advisory committees. The first two questions in this series asked youth to









identify "which of the following statements about participating on a 4-H Youth-Adult

Partnership teaching team best describes (themselves)" and "which of the following

statements about participating on a 4-H Youth-Adult Partnership planning committees or

advisory boards best describes (themselves)" using the following responses categories:

1) I've never participated, 2) I've never participated, but would like the opportunity to, 3)

I currently serve, but do not feel it is a partnership between youth and adults, or 4) I

currently serve within an equal partnership between youth and adults. A third question

asked youth to assess the quality of their role as a committee or board member by

completing the following statement: "Based on my experiences as a committee/board

member, I have:" using the following responses categories: 1) always been accepted as

a contributing member, 2) only been a token member, or 3) experienced both being a

contributing member and a token member. The major contributor to this section was the

sub-scale from Jones' (2004) Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale Youth-Adult

Interactions. The items on the Youth-Adult Interaction sub-scale included: a) getting

along well, b) perceived youth interactions with adults, c) perceived adult interactions

with youth, d) frequency of communication between the groups, e) agreement between

the groups, f) provision of direction and mentoring, g) level of partnership when working

on a project, h) level of mutual learning, and i) quality of communication between

groups.

The third section of the questionnaire examined the intention of youth to pursue

continued community engagement following their participation on a youth-adult

partnership team. These items included 11 items within a post-then assessment of

changes following YAP participation as well as three stand alone items. Within the post-









then assessment, youth were asked to indicate how the YAP program experience had

changed their 1) engagement in opportunities, 2) confidence levels, and 3) commitment

to being engaged in their community. Items for each of these categories are provided in

Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Categorized items within community post-then question
Engagement Confidence Commitment
"I was responsible for teaching "I was confident in helping "I wanted to be more
others" others" involved in my
community"
"I acted as a mentor to youth" "I was a confident board/ "I was committed to my
committee member" community"
"I planned learning activities" "I was confident in myself "I worked to make my
overall" community a better
place"
"I believed I had an important
impact on my community"
"I knew how to identify issues
within my community"

The before and after participation in YAP experience level for these items were

measured using the responses 1) never, 2) rarely, 3) a few times, or 4) many times.

Three additional questions were also used to identify other relevant personal

perceptions on community engagement. Youth were asked to identify "how much of an

impact would (they) say the Youth-Adult Partnership programs had on (their)

community" using the responses: 1) none, 2) a little, 3) some, or 4) a lot. They were

then asked about the importance of personal community involvement using the question

"how important is it to you to have an impact on making your community a better place"

using the responses: 1) very important, 2) somewhat important, 3) not really that

important, or 4) not at all. Finally, youth were asked to indicate their personal intentions

for continued engagement within their community as they answered the question "do

you have any plans to continue any form of community service or outreach" using the

responses: 1) definitely, 2) probably, 3) maybe, 4) I doubt it, or 5) not at this time.









The fourth, and final, section of the questionnaire captures information about the

Healthy Lifestyles programming content that was utilized throughout several of the

youth-adult partnership program; however, this section was not included as a pertinent

topic for this current research. A section for demographics was also included to provide

information necessary for proper analysis. Demographic information captured within this

survey included name, city/town, county, gender, ethnicity, race, age, years of 4-H

participation, and locale.

Following completion of the initial questionnaire draft, a panel of experts from the

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida reviewed the

questionnaire for content, contextual, and face validity. Each provided feedback on

general questionnaire design, word choices, scalar choices, and question order. Once

suggested changes had been made, cognitive interviewing was used with ten youth with

characteristics similar to the target population to determine whether a clear

understanding of directions and a true sense of what questions were asking was

provided. Final adjustments were made prior to distribution of the survey. The use of

these methods and the replication of Jones' (2004) Involvement and Interaction Rating

Scale provided increased reliability and validity to this research instrument.

Data Collection

Youth who had participated in YAP training and facilitations, which had personal

e-mail addresses on record, were sent an e-mail message which provided a cover letter

inviting them to participate and gaining consent as well as the questionnaire in fillable

PDF form. A similar e-mail was sent to 4-H agents from the counties represented within

the study population to ask for assistance in locating other youth participants from the

roster and to request their help in encouraging youth to complete the survey. A reminder









request to both youth and agents was sent one week later to encourage them to

participate if they intended to. A final request was sent asking for any completed

surveys to be returned within the final five days of collection. As youth returned the

survey, they were sent a note of thanks for contributing to the support of future 4-H

programming in the state. From the group of 60 trained youth surveyed, 23 (38.3%)

responded.

Current members of the Florida 4-H Executive Board were provided the consent

letter and survey in written form during the second yearly Executive Board meeting.

Former Executive Board members were also on-site and were asked to complete the

survey if they desired to participate. A verbal explanation about the importance of

completing the survey was given, but youth were also provided the option of not

completing the form if they did not wish to. Within this group of 64 youth, 60 completed

the survey for a response rate of 93.8%. The significant discrepancy in response rate is

consistent with the differences in reported response rates from these two different

modes of data collection (Sheehan & McMillan, 1999). This data collection process was

completed under the approval of the University of Florida Institutional Review Board

(#2009-U-1255).

Data Analysis

Data analyses were conducted using PASW (formerly SPSS) v.18. As previously

mentioned, two groups were initially identified for comparison within this study youth

with prior youth-adult partnership training and facilitation opportunities, and members of

the Florida 4-H Executive Board who were perceived to have similar characteristics to

members of the first group; however, three groups emerged. Youth with prior YAP

training and facilitation opportunities (Group 1) remained constant with 23 respondents.









However, members of the Executive Board split into two groups. Forty respondents

indicated that, while they had not participated in one of the five statewide YAP training

programs within this study, they had received opportunities to facilitate one or more of

these YAP programs within their communities (Group 2). The remaining 20 respondents

indicated that they had not received YAP training or the opportunity to facilitate YAP

programming in their community (Group 3). These three groups will be used for

comparative purposes to identify differences between those who received intentionally-

designed training to educate youth and adults on functioning within a youth-adult

partnership and those who either perceived they are a part of a partnership, or agree

that they have no such experience.

While some of the data collected represented curves that were highly skewed, the

researcher opted to still utilize parametric testing methods, rather than the non-

parametric counterparts. This decision was made due to the robustness of results when

run for both parametric and non-parametric testing, as well as the ease and availability

of parametric post hoc testing for identifying between group differences. Those items for

which the violation of normality was extreme were transformed prior to analysis.

Demographic data were analyzed using means and frequencies to describe the

sampled groups. Age was selected as the only demographic where this further analysis

was conducted since it was known that members of Groups 1 and 3 included former

4-H participants, while Group 2 only generated responses from youth currently engaged

in the Florida 4-H Executive Board. Therefore, a one-way ANOVA was used to

investigate if any significant differences occurred between the groups. Due to the

significant results from the ANOVA, it was determined that ANCOVAs should be used in









order to address possible covariate effects of age on the variables being examined. In

instances where significant differences were identified, additional ANCOVAs were

performed on each of the group pairs (Group 1*Group 2, Group 2*Group 3, and

Group 1*Group 3), and labeling age as a covariate.

The series of questions which sought to identify how levels of involvement differed

between youth with various levels of YAP experiences were analyzed using

frequencies, means and standard deviations to define level of involvement. Within some

of these findings specifically those dealing with frequency of facilitation opportunities

or service on committees and boards within the community one-way ANCOVAs and

independent t tests were used to determine if significant differences existed between

groups, identifying age as a covariate within the ANCOVA analyses. The final piece of

this variable included analysis of the data captured from the Youth Involvement and

Adult Involvement sub-scales of Jones' (2004) Involvement and Interaction Ratings

Scale. Reliability analyses, using Cronbach's alpha, were run on the two scales to

determine whether the items selected for inclusion held true to the findings from Jones'

(2004) research. Following confirmation of these results, the Shapiro-Wilk test was

performed to determine the normality of the curve for each of the sub-scales due to its

higher power in detecting normality. Again, ANCOVAs were utilized to determine

significant differences between groups, identifying age as a covariate for the analyses.

The next series of questions which sought to identify how youth with various levels

of YAP experience perceived the quality of interactions between youth and adults were

analyzed using crosstab analyses. Unfortunately, due to the limited number of

responses within a number of the cells, a Chi-square statistic was unable to be









generated to determine if significant differences existed between Groups 1, 2 and 3. In

addition to these questions, analysis of the data captured from the Youth-Adult

Interaction sub-scale of Jones' (2004) Involvement and Interaction Ratings Scale.

Reliability analyses, using Cronbach's alpha, was again used to determine whether the

items selected for inclusion held true to the findings from Jones' (2004) research.

Following confirmation of these results, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to

determine the normality of the curve. The choice was again made to use the Shapiro-

Wilk results due to its higher power in detecting normality. ANCOVAs were then utilized

to determine significant differences between groups, identifying age as a covariate

within the analyses.

The final series of questions sought to determine whether youth with various levels

of YAP experience would display different levels of potential for continued community

engagement. The majority of these questions came in the form of a series of post-then

items, used to assess differences before and after participation in a YAP program. The

individual items were divided into three categories engagement, confidence, and

commitment and tested for reliability using Cronbach's alpha. Strong reliability

displayed by these groupings allowed for a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA to

be conducted for each of the three categories (engagement, confidence, and

commitment) to assess the differences in respondent scores (Group 1, Group 2, and

Group) across the two time periods (before and after), with age being identified as a

covariate within the calculations. The final three questions were analyzed using one-

way ANCOVAs, which identified age as a covariate within the analyses, to again identify

significant differences between groups.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This research was conducted in order to examine the relationship of intentionality,

through participation in various levels of YAP experiences, on the quality of program

implementation, level of engagement during the program, interactions between youth

and adults within the program, and intentions to remain civically engaged within the

community following completion of the program. A total of 83 surveys were completed

from youth who either participated in selected Florida 4-H youth-adult partnership

programs, a Florida 4-H Executive Board, or a combination of the two over the last five

years (2004-2009). The following chapter presents the analyses from the collected data.

Demographics of Youth Participants

Thirty-six of the 67 Florida counties had participants represented within the data

collection. Many counties were represented with one or two participants, with the

highest representation from the 83 respondents coming from Santa Rosa County

(15.7%). When sorted by the three groups, a divergent pattern appears within county

participation. Fourteen counties were represented by youth who could be classified as

belonging to Group 3 (having participated in no YAP training or YAP opportunities).

This group accounts for 20 of the 83 youth surveyed. Counties within this group

supplied one to two participants. Youth who were classified as Group 1 having

participated in both multiple YAP training and facilitation opportunities came from

nine counties. Within this group of 23 respondents, counties which were represented by

more than two participants include Santa Rosa County (52.2%, n=12) and Walton

county (13.0%, n=3). Finally, youth who met the criteria for Group 2 youth who believe

they have participated in YAP facilitation, but have not participated in one of the five









YAP training represented 27 counties. Of these 27 counties, 11 had previous

representation within Groups 1 or 2, while the remaining 16 only had representation

within Group 3.

Youth surveyed ranged in age from 13 to 26 years, with a mean of 16.9 years. The

majority of youth ages were between 15 and 17 (70.0%, n=83). Youth from Group 1

(n=23) ranged in age from 13 to 26 years, with a mean of 17.9 years. Group 2 (n=40)

ranged in age from 14 to 19 years, with a mean of 16.5 years. Finally, Group 3 (n=20)

ranged in age from 14 to 25 years, with a mean of 16.5 years. A one-way ANOVA was

run to test for significant differences in age between Groups 1, 2, and 3. Significant

difference for between-group means were found at the p .05 level: F(2, 80) = 4.07,

p = .021. The effect size for this question, calculated using eta squared, was .09, which

indicates a moderate effect. Scheffe post hoc tests revealed significant differences

between Group 1 (M=17.91, SD=2.83) and Group 2 (M=16.52, SD=1.11). Therefore,

the age of youth in Group 2 was limited to a smaller range. This result was to be

expected since members of Groups 1 and 3 included former 4-H participants, while

Group 2 only generated responses from youth currently engaged in the Florida 4-H

Executive Board.

Youth were asked to indicate the number of years of general participation within

4-H, which ranged from 1 year to 15 years, with a mean of 8.8 years (SD=3.38). Youth

who were categorized with Moderate 4-H Participation (6-10 years) represented 47.6%

(n=39), while youth with Higher Participation (11 or more years) and Lower Participation

(1-5 years) represented 34.2% (n=28) and 18.4% (n=15) respectively. Further, youth

who belong to Group 1 (n=23) those with both YAP training and facilitation had a









mean participation of 9.4 years, while those in Group 2 (n=39) and Group 3 (n=20) had

general participation means of 9.4 years and 7.0 years respectively.

Of the 83 respondents, 60.2% were female and 39.8% were male. The majority of

the respondents were White/Caucasian (86.7%, n=72). Youth who characterized their

race as both White/Caucasian and American Indian/Alaskan Native made up the next

largest category (n=3). Other represented races include Black/African American (n=2),

youth who categorized their race as Other (n=2), American Indian/Alaskan Native (n=1),

Asian (n=1), White/Caucasian and Asian (n=1), and Black/African American and

American Indian/Alaskan Native (n=l). Of the 63 respondents who responded to

ethnicity, only 4.9% (n=3) categorized themselves as Hispanic. All were a part of

Group 2.

Another demographic variable captured the residence of surveyed participants.

The majority of youth surveyed described their area of residence as Rural/Farm (48.8%,

n=40), while the remaining youth were divided between Suburban (23.2%, n=19) and

Urban/City (28.0%, n=23). Due to the nature of the above-mentioned demographics,

each will be treated as independent variables throughout the remainder of the study.

Levels of Involvement between Youth with Various Levels of YAP Experience

The first research question within this study sought to identify how levels of

involvement differed between youth who have various levels of YAP experiences. The

level of involvement youth had within the Florida 4-H youth-adult partnership programs

was determined using prior rosters from previous training as well as a series of items

within the survey. These survey items asked youth to identify personal levels of

involvement as well as the overall participation of youth and adult involvement within the

various YAP experiences.









Participation within YAP Training

Data for participation within YAP training was collected using rosters from each of

the five YAP program training, rather than on the survey. This was to help ensure

proper grouping for those youth who had truly participated in a state-provided training

versus those who may have believed they were trained, but had not actually attended

one of the targeted training. Group 1 represents the 23 respondents who actually

participated in one or more of the five selected YAP training within the study. Of those

23 respondents, six had only participated in one of the training, 13 had participated in

two to four training, and the remaining four had participated in five to seven training,

resulting in a mean of 3.3 training. Between the training, EYSC had the greatest

representation, with 18 (78.3%) of the 23 having participated in at least one EYSC

training. The least represented training was OMK (8.7%, n=2). This, however, was to be

expected as the majority of OMK training participants were youth of military personnel

stationed on base, making them more difficult to contact due to reassignment to other

bases.

Facilitation of YAP Opportunities within the Community

Within the survey, youth were asked to convey the number of opportunities they

had to facilitate YAP programs within a local community setting using one of the five

program areas established "Health Rocks!", OMK, "YEAH!", Learning and Leading,

and EYSC. Respondents were asked to report the number of YAP Opportunities for

each of the five selected YAP programs. Six categories were available for response:

1) did not facilitate, 2) 1-3 opportunities, 3) 4-6 opportunities, 4) 7-9 opportunities,

5) 10-12 opportunities, and 6) 13 or more opportunities. Youth were also asked to

identify any "other" opportunities they had for facilitation which they believed also









constituted a youth-adult partnership. Table 4-1 provides frequencies of facilitation for

each program area.

Table 4-1. Facilitation of youth-adult partnership community training
Learning
"Health and
Opportunities Rocks!" OMK "YEAH!" Leading EYSC Other
to facilitate (n=83) (n=83) (n=83) (n=83) (n=83) (n=83)
Did not facilitate 41 (49.4%) 42(50.6%) 34(41.0%) 54(65.1%) 55(66.3%) 68(81.9%)
1-3 19(22.9%) 17(20.5%) 17(20.5%) 3 (3.6%) 12(14.5%) 4 (4.8%)
4-6 9(10.8%) 9(10.8%) 10(12.0%) 6(7.2%) 4(4.8%) 1 (1.2%)
7-9 4 (4.8%) 5 (6.0%) 3 (3.6%) 4 (4.8%) 2 (2.4%) 0 (0%)
10-12 2(2.4%) 2(2.4%) 6(7.2%) 4(4.8%) 2(2.4%) 1 (1.2%)
13 or more 8 (9.6%) 8(9.6%) 13(15.7%) 12(14.5%) 8(9.6%) 9(10.8%)

Youth who consistently responded "did not facilitate" for each of the areas were

identified for inclusion in Group 3. Those youth in Group 1 or Group 2 indicated by their

responses (59.0%, n=49) that the YEAH program provided them with the greatest

opportunities to facilitate programming within their communities, followed by Health

Rocks (50.6%, n=42) and OMK (49.4%, n=41).

The six previously mentioned categories were then assigned a score from 0 (did

not facilitate) to 5 (13 or more opportunities) in order to create a means for comparison

between Group 1 and Group 2. For each of the five statewide programs distinct

differences of facilitation opportunities can be found between the means of each group,

as displayed in Table 4-2. Group 3 was not included in this table since, by definition of

the group, they neither participated in training or in facilitation opportunities.

Though none of the mean differences are statistically significant, it does appear

that, overall, youth who were engaged in statewide training opportunities displayed

higher levels of facilitation opportunities than did their non-trained counterparts.










Table 4-2. Between group mean comparisons of YAP facilitation opportunities
Group 1 (n=23) -
Youth with training Group 2 (n=40) Youth
and facilitation with only facilitation
opportunities opportunities t-test Sig.
"Health Rocks!" M=1.52 M=1.55 -.06 .95
OMK M=1.78 M=1.43 .81 .42
"YEAH!" M=2.61 M=1.88 1.52 .13
Learning and Leading M=2.17 M=1.20 1.89 .06
EYSC M=1.61 M=0.93 1.50 .14
Other M=0.91 M=0.80 .24 .81
Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.

Serving on Committees and Boards within the Community

Youth were also asked to indicate the number of opportunities they had to serve

on committees or decision-making boards within their community. This series of three

questions included opportunities to serve on "youth only boards and committees",

"youth and adult boards and committees" and "public committees" (which included, but

was not limited to those related to the local library, school/PTA, fire/rescue, EOC,

church/faith-based, or hospital/medical). For "youth only" and "youth and adult"

committees, youth were asked to indicate their participation on a scale according to five

levels: 1) no opportunity to participate, 2) 1-5 opportunities, 3) 6-10 opportunities,

4) 11-15 opportunities, and 5) 16 or more opportunities. For opportunities to serve on

public committees, a more precise scale was used, ranging from 1 (no opportunity to

participate) to 6 (13 or more opportunities). A one-way ANCOVA was run to determine

whether significant differences existed among the groups. Table 4-3 provides the

means, standard deviations, and ANCOVA results for participants as a whole as well as

by group.










Table 4-3. Committees and board service within the community
Group 1 Group 3 -
Both Training Group 2 No Training
and Only or Partial
Overall Facilitation Facilitation Facilitation Eta
(n=83) (n=23) (n=40) (n=20) df F Sig. Squared
Youth only M=2.44 M =2.73 M=2.53 M=1.95
committees 2 3.83 .03* .089
SD=1.06 SD=1.32 SD=0.91 SD=0.89
or boards
Youth and
adult M=2.63 M=2.78 M=2.75 M=2.20
2 1.41 .25 .035
committees SD=1.26 SD=1.41 SD=1.13 SD=1.28
or boards
Public
SM=2.52 M=2.67 M=2.63 M=2.15
committees 2 1.83 .36 .026
SD=1.31 SD=1.32 SD=1.39 SD=1.14
or boards
Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.

Youth who either received both training and opportunities to facilitate YAP programs or

who only participated in the YAP opportunities both scored higher than the overall mean

in each area, indicating more frequent involvement in community committees and

boards than their counterparts who neither received training or opportunities.

Results from the ANCOVA indicate significant difference for between-group for

"youth only committees or boards" means at the p< .05 level: F(2, 78) = 3.83, p= .03.

The effect size for this question, calculated using a partial eta squared, was .089, which

indicates a moderate effect according to Cohen's 1988 guidelines. Additional ANCOVAs

were run for the three group pairs (Group 1*Group 2, Group 2*Group 3, and

Group 1*Group 3) to determine where the significant differences existed. Table 4-4

provides results from these group-paired ANCOVAs. The ANCOVA results for each of

the three group pairs revealed a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 at

the p< .05 level: F(1, 39) = 6.03, p= .02, partial eta squared = .134, indicating a

moderate to large effect. A significant difference between Group 2 and Group 3 was

also found at the p< .05 level: F(1, 57) = 5.53, p= .02, partial eta squared = .088,









indicating a moderate effect. The one-way ANCOVA for "youth and adult committees or

boards" and "public committees or boards" showed no significant differences.

Table 4-4. Group paired ANCOVA results for youth only committees and board service
within the community

df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Group 1*Group 2 1 .88 .35 .015
Group 2*Group 3 1 5.53 .02* .088
Group 1*Group 3 1 6.03 .02* .134
* Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.

Perceived Levels of Involvement within the Youth-Adult Partnership

The final component for determining levels of involvement within this evaluation

was based on Jones' Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale. As previously

mentioned in Chapter 3, the scale was constructed with three sub-scales. For the

variable, levels of involvement, two of the three sub-scales (Youth Involvement and

Adult Involvement) were used. Youth were asked to read two contrasting statements

related to their perceptions of either youth or adult involvement within their time in the

youth-adult partnership. Then, using a scale response from 1 to 10 placed between the

two statements, they were asked to define their experience by marking the box closest

to the statement that best described what they believed to be true about their youth-

adult partnership. The stronger they felt about the response, the closer to the statement

they were instructed to rate the item. Reliability analyses were run on each of the sub-

scales. Cronbach's alpha reliability was strong for both the Youth Involvement and Adult

Involvement sub-scales at a=.89 and a=.90 respectively.

A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to determine the normality of the curve for the

Youth Involvement sub-scale, both for the sample as a whole and for the individual

groups. While the test for the Youth Involvement scale for all respondents suggests









violation of the assumption of normality (p= .01), the tests for each individual group

indicate support for the assumption of normality (p> .05). Since this research is

interested in examining each sub-scale as it pertains to groups, normality is assumed to

be true. Means for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were M=8.62, M=7.42, and M=6.84

respectively. A one-way ANCOVA for each sub-scale was run to determine whether

significant differences existed among the groups. The Youth Involvement sub-scale

indicated significant differences at the p< .05 level in the between-group means:

F(2, 72) = 6.01, p= .004, partial eta squared = .143, indicating a large effect size.

Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine where the

significant differences existed. Table 4-5 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each

group pair. The ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant

difference between Group 1 and Group 3 at the p< .05 level: F(1, 35) = 13.71, p= .001,

partial eta squared = .281, indicating a large effect. A significant difference between

Group 1 and Group 2 was also found at the p< .05 level: F(1, 55) = 7.88, p= .007, partial

eta squared = .125, thereby also indicating a large effect.

Table 4-5. Group paired ANCOVA results for youth involvement sub-scale
Partial Eta
df F Sig. Squared
Group 1*Group 2 1 7.88 .007** .125
Group 2*Group 3 1 2.09 .16 .038
Group 1*Group 3 1 13.71 .001** .281
* Indicates significance at p< .05;
** Indicates significance at p< .01.

A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to determine the normality of the curve for the

Adult Involvement sub-scale, both for the sample as a whole and for the individual

groups. The test for the Adult Involvement sub-scale for all respondents also suggests

violation of the assumption of normality (p= .002). The tests for Group 1 and Group 2









appear to also violate the assumption of normality (p= .002 and p=.037 respectively),

while the test for Group 3 appears to support normality (p> .05). To account for the

violation of normality, the variable was transformed using a reflection/logarithm equation

- LG10 (K original variable) where K = largest possible value + 1. Following the

transformation, the test for the Adult Involvement scale for all respondents was again

found to violate the assumption of normality (p= .008). The tests for Group 1 and Group

3 now appear to support the assumption of normality (p> .05); however, the test for

Group 2 appears to still violate the assumption of normality (p= .003).

Following the transformation, means for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were

M=8.65, M=7.02, and M=7.78 respectively. A one-way ANCOVA was run to determine

whether significant differences existed among the groups. The Adult Involvement sub-

scale indicated significant differences at the p< .05 level in the means between groups:

F(2, 71) = 6.049, p= .004, partial eta squared = .146, which indicates a large effect.

Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine where the

significant differences existed. Table 4-6 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each

group pair. The ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant

difference between Group 1 and Group 2 at the p< .05 level: F(1, 55) = 11.09, p= .002,

partial eta squared = .168, indicating a large effect.

Table 4-6. Group paired ANCOVA results for transformed adult involvement sub-scale

df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Group 1*Group 2 1 11.09 .002** .168
Group 2*Group 3 1 2.68 .11 .050
Group 1*Group 3 1 2.76 .11 .073
* Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.









Youth from Group 1, who participated in at least one of the five statewide YAP

training, consistently scored their perceptions of youth involvement and adult

involvement higher than either of the other two groups. Youth Involvement and Adult

Involvement sub-scale item comparisons, including means and standard deviations for

participants as a whole as well as by group, can be viewed in Tables B-1 and B-2,

located in Appendix. In the Youth Involvement sub-scale, youth from Group 2 scored

youth involvement higher than youth in Group 3 on eight of the nine items. However,

this trend reversed on the Adult Involvement sub-scale as youth from Group 3 scored

adult involvement higher than youth in Group 2 on eight of the nine items. Therefore, it

appears that youth from Group 2 tend to view youth involvement as a strong positive,

with less favorable perceptions of adult involvement, while those who neither received

training nor opportunities seem to view the adults they work with more positively than

their Group 2 counterparts.

Perceived Quality of Interactions between Youth and Adults for Youth with
Various Levels of YAP Experience

The second research question within this study sought to identify how youth with

various levels of YAP experience perceived the quality of interactions between youth

and adults. This variable was determined using a series of four questions within the

survey in which youth were asked to consider the quality of interactions that occurred

between the youth and adults within their YAP program.

Interactions on Teaching Teams and Committees/Boards

The first two questions provided youth a series of four statements and asked

them to assess both their level of involvement and quality of interactions within two

common YAP settings: Teaching Teams and Planning Committees or Advisory Boards.










A Chi-square test for independence to determine significant differences in frequency

between the groups was not performed due to the small number of responses within

many cells. Therefore, Tables 4-7 and 4-8 simply provide the frequencies for each of

these questions by group.


Table 4-7. Crosstab

I've never participated.
I've never participated,
but would like to.
I currently serve, but do
not feel it is a
partnership.
I currently serve, and
believe it represents
an equal partnership.
Total

Table 4-8. Crosstab


results for interactions on teaching teams
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
2 (8.3%) 13(54.2%) 9 (37.5%)
1 (9.1%) 5 (45.5%) 5 (45.5%)

0 (0.0%) 3 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%)


18(43.9%) 17(41.5%) 6(30.0%)

21 38 20

results for interactions on committees


Total
24 (100%)
11 (100%)

3(100%)


41 (100%)

79


Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total
I've never participated. 3(27.3%) 5(45.5%) 3(27.3%) 11 (100%)
I've never participated, 1 (20.0%) 1 (20.0%) 3 (60.0%) 5 (100%)
but would like to.
I currently serve, but do
not feel it is a 1 (20.0%) 3 (60.0%) 1 (20.0%) 5 (100%)
partnership.
I currently serve, and
believe it represents 16 (27.1%) 31 (52.5%) 12 (20.3%) 59 (100%)
an equal partnership.
Total 21 40 19 80

It is evident from Table 4-6 and 4-7 that regardless of group, the majority of youth

- 41 of 79 (51.9%) and 59 of 80(73.8%) believe they are currently involved in either a

teaching team or committee that is promoting the concepts of equal partnership among

the youth and adults. While a small minority, it is interesting to note that it is the youth

from Group 2 who most often indicated that they "currently serve (on a teaching team or

committee), but do not feel it is an equal partnership." Based in intentionality, this result

was to be expected as these youth represent the group who is trying to function within a

partnership without having participated in the training which have been designed to









instruct both the youth and adults within the partnership on proper techniques to work

through communication and leadership issues unique to this type of setting.

Interactions within Committees and/or Boards

The third question asked youth to define their perceived role as committee or

board member according to three levels: 1) I have only been a token member, 2) I have

experienced both being a contributing member and a token member, and 3) I have

always been accepted as a contributing member. Again, a Chi-square test for

independence was not performed due to the small number of responses within many

cells. Table 4-9 provides the findings for each response by group.

Table 4-9. Crosstab results for defined committee role
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total
I have only been a token
I hve y been a0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 4 (100%)
member.
I have experienced both
being a contributing
being a contributing 18(35.3%) 24(47.1%) 9(17.6%) 51 (100%)
member and a token
member.
I have always been
accepted as a contributing 2 (8.3%) 15 (62.5%) 7 (29.2%) 24 (100%)
member.
Total 20 40 19 79

As demonstrated in Table 4-9, the majority of youth 51 of 79 (64.6%) defined their

overall experience working on committees and boards as being both contributory and

token in nature. Though a small number of cases defined their role as only token in

nature, it was youth from Group 3 that most often indicated that they have felt that way.

Again, those youth have not been through the training which are designed to aid youth

and adults in working together successfully in this unique setting.

Perceived Quality of Interactions within the Youth-Adult Partnership

The final component for determining quality of interactions was based on the third,

and final, sub-scale from Jones' Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale: Youth-Adult









Interactions. Again, youth were asked to read two contrasting statements, this time

related to their perceptions of the nature of interaction that occurred between youth or

adult involvement during their time in the youth-adult partnership. Then, using the same

1 to 10 scale response as used on the Youth Involvement and Adult Involvement sub-

scales, youth defined their perceptions of youth and adult interactions. The stronger

they felt about the response, the closer to the statement they were instructed to rate the

item. Reliability analysis was run on the sub-scale. Cronbach's alpha reliability was

strong at a=.94.

Again, a Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to determine the normality of the curve

for the sub-scale, both for the sample as a whole and for the individual groups. The test

for the Youth-Adult Interaction sub-scale for all respondents suggests violation of the

assumption of normality (p= .000). The tests for Group 1 and Group 2 appear to also

violate the assumption of normality (p= .004 and p=.019 respectively), while the test for

Group 3 appears to support normality (p> .05). To account for the violation of normality,

the variable was transformed using a reflection/logarithm equation LG10 (K original

variable) where K = largest possible value + 1.

Following the transformation, means for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were

M=8.86, M=7.70, and M=7.88 respectively. A one-way ANCOVA was run to determine

whether significant differences existed among the groups. The overall Youth-Adult

Interaction sub-scale indicated no significant differences at the p< .05 level in the means

between groups: F(2, 73) = 2.92, p= .06, partial eta squared =.074, indicating a

moderate effect. Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine if









any significant differences existed between the group pairs. Table 4-10 provides the

resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair.

Table 4-10. Group paired ANCOVA results for transformed youth-adult interaction sub-
scale
Partial Eta
df F Sig. Squared
Group 1*Group 2 1 5.70 .02* .091
Group 2*Group 3 1 .11 .74 .002
Group 1*Group 3 1 3.67 .06 .097
* Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.

The ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant difference

between Group 1 and Group 2 at the p< .05 level: F(1, 57) = 5.70, p= .02, partial eta

squared = .091, indicating a moderate effect.

Youth-Adult Interaction sub-scale item comparisons, including means and

standard deviations for participants as a whole as well as by group, can be viewed in

Table B-3, located in Appendix. Youth from Group 1 consistently scored their

perceptions of youth-adult interactions higher than either of the other two groups, as

reflected by the differences in the means. Youth from Group 3 scored youth-adult

interactions higher than youth in Group 2 on five of the nine items including youth

interactions with adults, agreement between the groups, provision of direction and

mentoring, level of partnership when working on a project, and the level of mutual

learning taking place.

Potential for Continued Community Engagement for Youth with Various Levels of
YAP Experience

The third, and final, research question within this study sought to determine

whether youth with various levels of YAP experience would display different levels of

potential for continued community engagement. This variable was determined using a









series of five questions within the survey in which youth were asked to consider the

impacts they have on their community through engagement in the community and their

personal confidence levels, as well as their commitment to the community including the

importance of community involvement and their intentions for continued engagement

with their community following the completion of the YAP program.

Perceived Impacts within the Community

Two questions provided youth with the opportunity to indicate the perceived level

of impact they have within their community. First, a series of post-then items were used

to assess the differences before and after participation in a YAP program using the

responses 1) never, 2) rarely, 3) a few times, and 4) many times. The individual items

were divided into three categories engagement, confidence, and commitment. Items

within each category were tested for reliability. Table 4-11 provides the distribution of

items.

Table 4-11. Categorized items within community post-then question
Engagement Confidence Commitment
"I was responsible for teaching "I was confident in helping "I wanted to be more involved in
others" others" my community"
"I acted as a mentor to youth" "I was a confident board/ "I was committed to my
committee member" community"
"I planned learning activities" "I was confident in myself overall" "I worked to make my community
a better place"
"I believed I had an important
impact on my community"
"I knew how to identify issues
within my community"

These items were condensed into three categories engagement (3 items),

confidence (5 items), and commitment (3 items). Cronbach's alpha reliability, for both

before and after scores, was calculated for each category to determine the confidence

in the groups created. Table 4-12 provides the alpha scores for these results.









Table 4-12. Cronbach's alpha reliability for each category
Engagement Confidence
Before YAP .821
After YAP .753


.838


Commitment


Strong reliability measures across the categories indicate that these items can be

confidently grouped together. Once reliability was confirmed, a mean score was

calculated for each respondent for each of these categories. A mixed between-within

subjects ANOVA was then conducted for each of the three categories (engagement,

confidence, and commitment) to assess the differences in respondent scores (Group 1,

Group 2, and Group3) across the two time periods (before and after), accounting for

age as a covariate within the calculations.

Perceived impacts on the community focused on two of these three categories -

engagement and confidence. For engagement, there was no significant interaction

between groups and time period, Wilks Lambda = .96, F (2, 59) = 1.11, p= .34, partial

eta squared = .04. There was no substantial main effect for time, Wilks Lambda = 1.00,

F (1, 59) = .018, p=.89, partial eta squared = .000. It was also determined that the main

effect comparing the three groups was not significant, F (2, 59) = 2.11, p = .13, partial

eta squared = .072, thereby suggesting no difference in the amount of change between

the three groups. Table 4-13 provides the findings within this item, including mean and

standard deviation for respondents by group.

Table 4-13. Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA results for engagement
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Time Period n M SD n M SD n M SD
Before 18 8.06 2.84 36 8.81 2.51 9 7.67 1.41
After 18 11.56 1.04 36 11.17 1.46 9 9.89 1.83

There was a significant interaction between groups and time period for confidence,

Wilks Lambda = .86, F (2, 57) = 4.64, p= .01, partial eta squared = .140. In order to


.896
.872









determine where this significant interaction was taking place, three additional mixed

between-within subjects ANOVAs were conducted comparing each individual group with

one of the others Group 1* Group 2, Group 2*Group 3, and Group 1*Group 3. No

significant interactions were found for Group 1*Group 2. However, significant

interactions were found in the Groupl*Group 3 results: Wilks Lambda = .73,

F (1, 23) = 8.67, p= .007, partial eta squared = .270 and in the Group 2*Group 3 results:

Wilks Lambda = .88, F (1, 41) = 5.45, p= .025, partial eta squared = .120. This suggests

that the significant interaction that appeared in the initial mixed ANOVA results was due

to the significant differences in change over time occurring between these two sets of

groups.

With the significance of the interaction linked to the disparity between these two

group pairs (Group 1*Group 3 and Group 2*Group 3), main effects were cautiously

examined. According to the results, no substantial main effect for time appears to exist

within confidence: Wilks Lambda = 1.00, F (1, 57) = .13, p= .72, partial eta squared =

.002. Additionally, the main effect comparing the three groups was not significant:

F (2, 57) = .68, p= .51, partial eta squared = .020, suggesting no difference in the

amount of change of confidence between the three groups. Table 4-14 provides the

findings within this item, including mean and standard deviation for respondents by

group.

Table 4-14. Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA results for confidence
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Time Period n M SD n M SD n M SD
Before 17 8.18 2.77 35 9.26 2.37 9 9.89 1.54
After 17 11.35 1.32 35 11.43 1.24 9 10.44 1.42









No significant interaction occurred for engagement, indicating that there was no

significant difference between the change in scores for the three groups. However, for

the second category confidence the ability to confidently report the main effects

within that category is limited since the main effect results may be impacted by the

significant interaction between groups and time period for Groups 1 and 3.

A second question for perceived impacts asked youth to indicate the level of

impact they believed the YAP program, itself, had on their local community using the

responses 1) none, 2) a little, 3) some, and 4) a lot. Means for Groupl, Group 2, and

Group 3 were M=3.52, M=3.05, and M=2.68 respectively. A one-way ANCOVA was run

to determine whether significant differences existed among the groups. Results from

this question indicated significant differences at the p< .05 level in the means between

groups: F(2, 76) = 4.49, p = .01, partial eta squared = .110, indicating a moderate effect.

Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine if any significant

differences existed between the group pairs. Table 4-15 provides the resulting

ANCOVAs for each group pair.

Table 4-15. Group paired ANCOVA results for impact of YAP program
df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Group 1*Group 2 1 5.05 .03* .080
Group 2*Group 3 1 2.27 .14 .039
Group 1*Group 3 1 7.75 .008** .173
* Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.

Results from the ANCOVA for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant

difference at the p< .05 level between Group 1 and Group 2: F(1, 58) = 5.05, p= .03,

partial eta squared = .080 (moderate effect) as well as between Group 1 and Group 3:

F(1, 37) = 7.75, p= .008, partial eta squared = .173, indicating a large effect.









Commitment to the Community

The second aspect of potential for continued community engagement explored

commitment to community. The first question in this section came from the third

category of the post-then items used to assess the differences before and after

participation in a YAP program commitment. There was not a significant interaction

between groups and time period for commitment, Wilks Lambda = .94, F (2, 54) = 1.72,

p = .19, partial eta squared = .060; therefore, main effects can be examined with

confidence. There was no substantial main effect for time, Wilks Lambda = .99,

F (1, 54) = .58, p=.45, partial eta squared = 0.011. The main effect for the three groups

was also not significant, F (2, 54) = .97, p = .39, partial eta squared = .035, suggesting

no difference in the amount of change of confidence between the three groups. Table

4-16 provides the findings within this item, including mean and standard deviation for

respondents by group. No significant interaction occurred for commitment, indicating

that there was no significant difference in the change of scores for each of the three

groups. Just as with the other two categories, there appears to be no main effect for

time or difference between the groups in any of the three categories.

Table 4-16. Mixed between-within subjects ANOVA results for commitment
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Time Period n M SD n M SD n M SD
Before 17 13.35 5.14 33 14.00 4.21 8 12.75 2.77
After 17 19.06 1.68 33 17.73 2.58 8 16.00 4.11

A second question asked youth to indicate how important they believed it was to

have an impact on their community using the responses 1) not at all, 2) not really that

important, 3) somewhat important, and 4) very important. Means for Groupl, Group 2,

and Group 3 were M=3.83, M=3.62, and M=3.30 respectively. A one-way ANCOVA was









run to determine whether significant differences existed among the groups. Results from

this question indicated significant differences at the p< .05 level in the means between

groups: F(2, 79) = 4.19, p = .02, partial eta squared = .096, which indicates a moderate

effect. Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine if any

significant differences existed between the group pairs. Table 4-17 provides the

resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair. The ANCOVA results for each of the three

group pairs revealed a significant difference at the p< .05 level between Group 1 and

Group 3: F(1, 40) = 8.44, p= .006, partial eta squared = .174, indicating a large effect.

Table 4-17. Group paired ANCOVA results for importance of personal involvement
within the community
Partial Eta
df F Sig. Squared
Group 1*Group 2 1 1.94 .17 .031
Group 2*Group 3 1 3.73 .06 .061
Group 1*Group 3 1 8.44 .006** .174
* Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.

The third, and final question, explored plans youth had for continued community

service or outreach once their participation in YAP was over. Youth were asked to

specify their response using the responses 1) not at this time, 2) I doubt it, 3) maybe,

4) probably, and 5) definitely. Means for Groupl, Group 2, and Group 3 were M=4.43,

M=4.68, and M=3.79 respectively. A one-way ANCOVA was run to determine whether

significant differences existed among the groups. Results from this question indicated

significant differences at the p< .05 level in the means between groups: F(2, 78) = 5.74,

p= .005, partial eta squared = .128 (moderate to large effect). Additional ANCOVAs

were run for the three group pairs to determine if any significant differences existed

between the group pairs. Table 4-18 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each group

pair. The ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed significant










differences at the p< .05 level between Group 2 and Group 3: F(1, 56) = 14.02, p= .000,

partial eta squared = .200, indicating a large effect size.

Table 4-18. Group paired ANCOVA results for plans for continued involvement within
the community
Partial Eta
df F Sig. Squared
Group 1*Group 2 1 1.41 .24 .023
Group 2*Group 3 1 14.02 .000** .200
Group 1*Group 3 1 2.11 .16 .051
* Indicates significance at p< .05; ** Indicates significance at p< .01.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Within the Florida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement the

youth-adult partnership (YAP) model "Health Rocks!", Operation: Military Kids (OMK),

Learning and Leading, Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health ("YEAH!"), and

Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC). This research sought to identify the

importance of intentionally-designed programming, through various YAP-specific

experiences, on the overall quality of programming, as well as levels of engagement

and quality of youth and adult interactions while engaged in the YAP program, and

potential for continued community engagement following completion of the program.

Limitations

The researcher recommends exercising caution generalizing beyond the group

identified. Several limitations existed within the design of this study. First, and foremost,

the study was designed to capture youth responses for the various dependent variables

(levels of involvement, quality of youth-adult interactions, and continued community

engagement) without simultaneously capturing the adult perspective for the same time

period within the same partnerships. Youth may have been either too critical or not

critical enough when responding to the self and peer-related questions. Assessing the

adult responses within the same partnership teams, or identifying and surveying teams

rather than individual members, would have provided a balancing of perceptions

regarding dynamics within the partnership.

Another limitation is that the evaluation desired to capture information from youth

who had since graduated from high school and, therefore, have a significant distance

between themselves and their time within the partnership. It may have been difficult for









youth who have experienced a more substantial allotment of time to pass to accurately

recall events or perceptions during their YAP participation. On some items within the

survey, it was decided that rosters would be used to avoid this complication of memory

including in which training participation actually occurred. However, the remaining

questions relied on those youth to recall events as potentially distant as five years prior.

Nine out of the 23 youth in Group 1 were potentially affected by this issue with recall.

However, the vast majority of youth in Groups 2 and 3 were still actively engaged within

programs in Florida 4-H.

The researcher chose to capture responses from youth who were current or

former members of the Florida Executive Board. These youth were chosen because of

their similarities in leadership and civic engagement interests. However, it is possible

that these youth were too much like their youth-adult partnership counterparts since

every year the Executive Board spends time hearing presentations about youth-adult

partnership programming from YAP teams and adults who assist with the Executive

Board are well versed in the youth-adult partnership model. Due to the nature of the

Executive Board dynamics, these youth also have the opportunity to continually engage

in close-knit, community building relationships, similar to those promoted within the YAP

programs. Therefore, the results for comparison could have been more significantly

biased than if youth outside the Executive Board had been included in the study.

Finally, the demographics of the groups contributed to a limited scope of

participants. As conveyed in the demographics section in Chapter 4, 86.7% of the

respondents were White/Caucasian. While this is comparable to the race distribution of

4-H clubs throughout Florida 86.0% (ES237 Report, 2009), this lack of diversity within









the sampled population could be contributing to bias within the results of the study.

Similarly, almost half of the respondents (48.2%) defined their locale as Rural/Farm,

rather than Suburban or Urban/City. This uneven distribution of locale may have also

contributed to bias within the results.

Conclusions

Levels of Involvement

Hypothesis 1 stated that youth who have specifically participated in youth-adult

partnership training within the Florida 4-H YAP programs between 2004 and 2009

would exhibit higher levels of involvement than those youth who have only facilitated

YAP programs in their community, but lack appropriate training and those youth who

have neither been trained in the youth-adult partnership model, nor facilitated any type

of youth-adult partnership opportunity. According to the independent t-test performed on

the reported opportunity frequency levels, a comparison of Group 1 and Group 2

resulted in no significant differences between the groups. Therefore, the youth who

received training and those who only facilitated YAP opportunities in their community

reported the same level of involvement for YAP facilitations within their communities,

therefore failing to support the hypothesis.

When asked about involvement on boards or committees within the community,

only one significant difference emerged between the groups. Based on the significant

results from the one-way ANCOVA for the three groups as a whole, additional ANCOVA

pairs were run to determine where the significant differences were occurring. The only

significant differences found to be occurring were between Group 1 and Group 3 in the

frequency of involvement on a "youth only" board or committee. Therefore, youth who

were trained were likely to be involved more often in "youth only" boards or committees









than their counterparts who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities.

These results offer only slight support for the hypothesis.

Youth were also asked to assess the perceived involvement level for youth and

adults within their partnership. Based on the significant results from the one-way

ANCOVA on the Youth Involvement sub-scale, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to

determine where the significant differences were occurring. Significant differences were

found to be occurring between Group 1 and Group 3 as well as between Group 1 and

Group 2. Therefore, youth who were trained were likely to perceive the levels of youth

involvement within the project significantly more positive than either of their counterparts

- those who only facilitated YAP opportunities and those who neither received YAP

training nor facilitation opportunities. Additionally, significant results from the one-way

ANCOVA on the Adult Involvement sub-scale resulted in additional ANCOVA pairs

being run to determine where the significant differences were occurring. The only

significant differences found to be occurring were between Group 1 and Group 2.

Therefore, youth who were trained were likely to perceive the levels of adult

involvement within the project significantly more positive than those who only facilitated

YAP opportunities. Support for the hypothesis seems to be strongest within these two

questions. Results from these 18 items seem to clearly indicate that the youth who

underwent intentional training within the YAP program were more likely to perceive

higher levels of youth and adult interest and involvement within the partnership than

those who did not participate in the training. It seems, then, while actual frequency of

involvement within these community projects seems consistent across the three groups,









the perceived levels of youth and adult involvement within the partnership itself

increases when youth have participated in training.

Quality of Interactions

Hypothesis 2 stated that youth who have specifically participated in youth-adult

partnership training will report higher perceived quality of interactions between youth

and adults within their program than those youth who have only facilitated YAP

programs in their community, but lack appropriate training and those youth who have

neither been trained in the youth-adult partnership model, nor facilitated any type of

youth-adult partnership opportunity. Youth were asked to consider the interactions that

they had when involved on teaching teams or boards/committees within the community.

No analyses to determine significant differences between groups were able to be made

due to too few respondents. However, of the 79 youth who did respond, only three have

served on a teaching team that they believe did not represent an equal partnership.

These three all belonged to Group 2 those who have not received training, but have

facilitated YAP opportunities. While this result may indeed indicate support for the

hypothesis, the inability to determine if a statistical difference exists provides thin

support for this hypothesis.

Youth were also asked to define their perceived role while on a committee. While

no analyses to determine significant differences between groups were able to be made

due to too few respondents, four of the youth who did respond defined their role on

the committee as always being a token member. These youth came from Group 2

(1 respondent) and Group 3 (3 respondents). The majority of youth 51 of 79 defined

their role throughout their experience on committees and boards as being contributory

and token in nature. However, it is youth in Group 1 that had the largest percentage of









participants (90%) define their role in that manner, versus Group 2 (60%) and Group 3

(47%). Without the ability to determine if a statistical difference exists, it is difficult to use

this data to provide support for this hypothesis.

In addition to their time on a committee or board, youth were also asked to assess

the quality of the interactions they observed between youth and adults within their

partnership. Based on the significant results from the one-way ANCOVA on the Youth-

Adult Interaction sub-scale, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to determine where the

significant differences were occurring. The only significant differences found to be

occurring were between Group 1 and Group 2. Just as with the Adult Involvement sub-

scale, youth who were trained were likely to perceive the quality of interactions between

youth and adults within the project significantly more positive than those who only

facilitated YAP opportunities. Again, support for the second hypothesis seems to be

strongest within the sub-scale provided by Jones. Results from these nine items seem

to clearly indicate that the youth who underwent intentional training within the YAP

program were more likely to perceive interactions between youth and adults within the

partnership more positively than those who did not participate in the training. Therefore,

while the quality of interactions experienced on community boards and committees

seems consistent across the three groups, the results from the items which focused on

the partnership itself seem to suggest support for the hypothesis that youth who

participated in YAP training opportunities were more likely to judge interactions between

youth and adults within the partnership more positively than those who were untrained,

but still facilitated YAP opportunities.









Potential for Continued Community Engagement

Hypothesis 3 stated that youth who have specifically participated in youth-adult

partnership training will exhibit higher potential for continued community engagement

than those youth who have only facilitated YAP programs in their community, but lack

appropriate training and those youth who have neither been trained in the youth-adult

partnership model, nor facilitated any type of youth-adult partnership opportunity. Youth

were asked to rate items that were used to identify before and after participation beliefs

on a series of statements regarding three categories engagement within the

community, confidence, and commitment to the community. Results from the mixed

between-within subjects ANOVA for items within each of the three categories -

engagement, confidence, and commitment indicated that only one significant

difference occurred between any of the groups. Youth from Group 1 and Group 3 (those

who received training and facilitation opportunities and those who received neither)

reported significantly different increases in their levels of confidence when interacting

within the community. Those who received no training reported only a slight increase in

confidence, while those who participated in at least one state-led YAP training reported

a significantly higher increase in confidence. Therefore, this data provides some support

the hypothesis for higher potential for continued community engagement following

participation in the program.

In addition to the post-then items, youth were asked to indicate the level of impact

they believed the YAP programs had on their community. Based on the significant

results from the one-way ANCOVA on this question, additional ANCOVA pairs were run

to determine where the significant differences were occurring. Significant differences

were found to be occurring between Group 1 and Group 2 as well as between Group 1









and Group 3. Therefore, youth who were trained were more likely to perceive the impact

of YAP programming within the community more positively than their counterparts who

participated in facilitation opportunities without proper training, as well as those who

neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities.

Youth were also asked to indicate how important they believed it was to have an

impact on their community. Based on the significant results from the one-way ANCOVA

on this question, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to determine where the significant

differences were occurring. The only significant differences found to be occurring were

between Group 1 and Group 3. Therefore, youth who were trained were likely to

perceive the importance of personal involvement within the community more positively

than their counterparts who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities.

The final question within this variable asked youth to identify whether they had

plans for continued community service once their participation in YAP was over. Based

on the significant results from the one-way ANCOVA on this question, additional

ANCOVA pairs were run to determine where the significant differences were occurring.

The only significant differences found to be occurring were between Group 2 and Group

3. This suggests that youth who facilitated YAP opportunities within their community

were more likely to engage in continued community service than their counterparts who

neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Therefore, while the results

from the post-then items indicate a consistent level of potential for continued community

engagement across the three groups, thereby failing to support the hypothesis, the

results from the final three items seem to provide some, albeit weak, support for the

hypothesis.









Discussions

Youth-Adult Partnerships in Florida 4-H

Through the demographic findings of this study, it appears that the availability of

state-led youth-adult partnership training has been severely limited to a small portion of

overall population. While youth from 27 counties of the 67 counties in Florida claimed to

have experience facilitating youth-adult partnerships within their community, only nine

have actually sent participants to a formal state-led training. Of those nine, one county

was the main contributor in the creation of partnership teams. This seems to indicate a

need for additional training opportunities to be provided in order to expand the breadth

of YAP programming throughout the state. Expansion to additional counties should

target youth who are racially-representative of their areas and should include more

members who are from urban or suburban areas, making sure to be demographically-

representative of the local community or 4-H district. Through the targeted creation of

demographically-representative teams, the breadth of the program's foundation would

increasingly strengthen across the state.

In addition to expanding the breadth of the youth-adult partnership model

throughout the state, it is important that training also demonstrate the benefits of

incorporating the practices and philosophies of youth-adult partnerships into additional

program and community outreach settings, thereby also increasing the depth of the

model. Currently, only five state-led programs utilize this program model, and it does

appear that YAP practices and philosophies are evident outside these programs (such

as in the state Executive Board). However, training should also assist YAP teams in

identifying other areas in which youth and adults come together to identify and

implement plans within the community (including other 4-H program areas or within the









state council system), which would also benefit from incorporating these same practices

and philosophies. An increase of both the breadth and depth of the youth-adult

partnership model through targeted training would result in a stronger network of

youth-adult partnership teams across the state. However, prior to the creation of new

YAP teams (as suggested from the demographic findings of this study), it was

necessary to identify whether the previously-trained teams were truly youth-adult

partnerships.

One of the primary intentions of this study was to determine whether the Florida

4-H youth-adult partnership programs actually exhibited the qualities of a youth-adult

partnership as defined in Jones and Perkins' (2005b) Continuum of Youth-Adult

Relationships. This accounts for the inclusion of the continuum sub-scales within the

study questionnaire. Within the continuum exist five separate categories of potential

youth-adult relationships. Either end of this continuum contains programming models

that exclude active input from the non-dominant participants youth-centered and adult-

centered leadership. The next step closer to the center of the continuum consists of

collaborations where the non-dominant group is allowed to provide some voice on the

direction and implementation of programming decisions, though final say remains with

the dominant group. Finally, the relationship at the center of the continuum provides

both groups of participants the opportunity to partner together in a balanced harmony of

power and voice in order to reach a desired set of goals the youth-adult partnership.

Jones and Perkins (2005b) outlined various types of youth-adult relationships based on

the results from the Involvement and Interaction Ratings Scale.









According to their defined levels, any group who scored high levels of youth

involvement, adult involvement and interaction between the two groups would be seen

as a youth-adult partnership. Based on the definition of "high" as provided within that

article and Jones' (2006) Extension publication, all three of the groups within this

program would be considered as functioning as a youth-adult partnership, even though

two of the three groups have received no proper youth-adult partnership training. This

conclusion points back to two of the limitations with this study. The first aspect that

could have affected this result was the lack of adult perceptions within the same team

dynamic. The researcher chose to limit the scope of this research to youth as

individuals, rather than include both youth and adult responses or analyze the

responses by team. This lack of balance between both sets of contributors (youth and

adults) could have biased the results since youth may have overestimated their

perceptions of involvement or interactions that occurred during their time in the

program.

Second, the use of youth who so closely resembled their counterparts, and who

were frequent audiences of various YAP presentations, may have also significantly

biased the results. Through their exposure to the youth-adult partnership materials, it is

possible that youth who did not even participate in a partnership gained enough

exposure while on the Executive Board that they perceived similar levels of involvement

and interactions between youth and adults. There may not have been enough variability

between the groups to indicate a marked difference in defined youth-adult relationships

as defined by Jones and Perkins (2005b). However, the possibility exists that these









planned exposures to YAP programming may subtly support the overall hypothesis of

this study intentional programming results in greater levels of desired outcomes.

Intentionality within the YAP Programming

As previously stated, the theory of developmental intentionality is based on key

precepts which govern the effectiveness of youth engagement within community youth-

based programs (Walker et al., 2005). Programs are deemed most effective when

attention is given to the long-term developmental outcomes throughout both

programmatic design and philosophy of involved youth workers (Walker et al., 2005).

These learning opportunities are deliberate and strategic, designed to maximize the

desired developmental outcomes within the program, while remaining thoughtful and

responsive to the needs of the youth being served. The provision of specific program

training within each of the five YAP program areas provided the youth and adults with a

foundation for successful partnerships between the two groups. Youth are also more

likely to achieve desired outcomes when actively engaged in the process as

collaborators rather than simply recipients (Walker et al., 2005). Youth from Group 1,

who received this type of intensive, intentional training in the youth-adult partnership

model, often responded more positively than their non-trained counterparts. Therefore,

while not conclusive (since only partial support was present from two of the three

hypotheses), the results from this study suggest value exists for participating in this type

of intentionally-designed training.

Being a part of a YAP team or a member of the Executive Board is collaborative in

nature since both groups work as units, utilizing their skills in leadership, teamwork and

communication to accomplish a set of goals over the course of the project. Therefore,

the intentional incorporation of YAP workshops during the yearly Executive Board









meetings, and within local communities, provided YAP teams with the opportunity to

practice the learned skills as they actively work to achieve a shared sense of purpose,

direction, and goals within their presentations. Workshop presentations to the Executive

Board were also intentional in nature as adults who were trained in the youth-adult

partnership model sought to enhance the skills of Executive Board youth by exposing

them to both the YAP program content as well as the skills necessary to successfully

work in equal partnership with adults. Based on the results from this study, while not as

high as their trained counterparts, youth on the Executive Board did appear to exhibit

similar characteristics of those youth within a true youth-adult partnership. Through their

engagement in these programs, they have developed the skills necessary to continue

being active leaders within their communities.

Continued Community Engagement

As noted in the conclusion section, the results from the majority of continued

community engagement items indicate a consistent level of potential for community

across the three groups, failing to support the hypothesis. This, however, is not a

negative finding. Much of the literature on community youth development developed

from the work of Little (1993), Eccles and Gootman (2002), and Lerner (2004) in what

has come to be known as the six Cs competence, confidence, connection, character,

caring/compassion, and contribution (Lerner et al., 2005). These six Cs play a crucial

role in "understanding the goals and outcomes of community-based programs aimed at

enhancing youth development" (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 22). Within this study, youth were

asked to report their levels of competence, confidence, connection and contribution in

relation to their communities. Each group scored these items consistently higher than

before their participation in the program. Based on the intentional programming









provided through both Florida 4-H YAP and Executive Board, these youth seem quite

intent to continue on their path of civic engagement within their communities.

Recommendations

From this research, it appears that youth-adult partnerships are present in Florida

4-H. However, as was stated in the conclusion of the History of Florida 4-H, some

programs are opting to limit the training on creating a successful youth-adult

partnerships due to budget or time constraints. However, as this research has

demonstrated, there are benefits to providing intentional programming through training

and practice opportunities in order to most effectively reach the desired outcomes.

Based on the conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made for

practitioners and researchers within the Florida 4-H program. Caution should be used in

generalizing conclusions and recommendations beyond the population of Florida 4-H

YAP and Executive Board participants.

More Youth-Adult Partnership 4-H Training for Staff and Volunteers

. The Florida 4-H system, as a whole, should continue to incorporate the youth-
adult partnership model in more program areas, as well as within the state
council system (local, county, and district councils).

. In order to promote intentional youth development programming and evolving
youth-adult partnership philosophies, professional development opportunities
should be provided to staff and volunteers annually, such as during the YDI
conference.

More Intentional Training for County Youth-Adult Partnership Teams

S Over the past five years of youth-adult partnering within the state of Florida, only
nine of the 67 counties throughout the state have actually participated in YAP
training. Program training should be provided to counties which have yet to
participate within these program areas.

. The state 4-H office should provide at least one intentionally-designed
opportunity each year for youth and adults to participate in YAP training. Each









county should send at least one youth-adult partnership team to this workshop in
order to create a network of teams throughout the state.

As the demographics in this study revealed, a large majority of youth participants
were White/Caucasian. A more concentrated effort needs to be made in order to
pursue the creation of YAP teams based on the demographic representation of
the district when organizing future training, both for youth and adult participants.

S Additional teams should also be identified and provided training within suburban
and urban/city communities, since the majority of respondents who have
received training live within a rural/farm locale.

S YAP teams that are created should be utilized to work with county and district
boards to increase the use of core youth-adult partnership concepts as they
facilitate YAP training and model proper YAP interactions.

S YAP teams should also continue to facilitate YAP training and model proper
YAP interactions during at least one yearly Executive Board meeting in order to
promote healthy interactions between youth and adults within the program.

Further Evaluation and Research of Youth-Adult Partnerships

Further study of the applicability of Jones' (2004) Involvement and Interaction
Rating Scale to the Florida 4-H YAP programming should be conducted using 4-
H youth who are only involved at the local or club level as a comparison group in
order to make a distinction between the strengths of the Florida 4-H youth-adult
partnership programs and other youth who simply participate in the general 4-H
program.

S Future research should be conducted on existing youth-adult partnership teams
to identify whether perceived dynamics change once youth and adults are both
included in the assessment.

It may also prove valuable to involve youth within other programs, such as Boys
and Girls Club, to act as a comparison group in order to make a distinction
between the strengths of the Florida 4-H youth-adult partnership programs and
other youth programs.

Yearly assessments of YAP teams across the state should be conducted in order
to maintain a more accurate assessment of the health of Florida 4-H YAP
programming, rather than at the current five-year interval. This will present a
clearer picture of how the partnerships are performing, while providing the youth
and adults involved with the opportunity to address any issues that emerge as a
result of the evaluation.











APPENDIX A
INSTRUMENTATION

Informed Consent


T | UNIVERSITY of

UF IFLORIDA

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 3014 McCarty Hall D
Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences PO Box 110310
Gainesville, FL 32611-0310
352-273-3530
352-392-8196 Fax
DATE: January 8,2010 jcj@ufl.edu
hrrp /iy.:: -... uil edu

TO: The Followi ng4-H'ers or Former 4-H'ers:

FROM: Joy Jordan, 4-H State Office

The Florida 4-H program embarked on a major initiative to engage youth and adults in partnership with
several major statewide projects beginning in 2004-05. Your name was on one of our training or event lists
where you and an adult mentor/leader participated in one of these programs: Health Rocks, Learning and
Leading, YEAH (Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health) and EYSC (Engaging Youth, Serving
Communities) grants and the Speak-Out for Military Kids program (SOMK). Many of our efforts focused also
on helping youth make healthier lifestyle choices and provided teens the opportunity to be leaders among
their peers and in their communities.

With this e-mail, we are asking you to take a few minutes and cornplete the attached survey about your
opinions and experiences regarding youth-adult experiences in one or more of these programs. We would
like to contin ue to improve our youth-adult partnership and training programs. This survey will help us get
some data from you, as a group, to learn more about our strengths and weaknesses- Also this data will help
support further funding proposals for many of these programs.

We will combine all the data of youth participants and not refer to you or your county. The information with
be confidential. We will provide you a complete copy and full report of our results for your continued review
and input. We would love to have any other information or examples in the open-ended questions that will
help us share the value 4-H has had for you or your opportunities.

You are a special group of you ng people to Florida 4-H over the past five years. I do hope you will take the
tim e to com pl ete the survey and return it to us.

Instructions to complete the fill-able on-line form.
1- You will need Acrobat Reader downloaded on your cornputer to access and complete the fill-able
survey form. Click here for the free Acrobat Reader download.
2- Once you have completed the survey, click on the SUBMIT button. If you are using a desktop email
like Microsoft Outlook, Eudora or mail, it will be autoratica ly submitted to us. If your email is
internet based, like Yahoo or Hotmail, you will first need to save your completed form then send it
manually to us at this address: return itto my graduate student Ms. Jessica Kochert at:
jgould@ufi.edu.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email us. We certainly appreciate your help "to make the
best better" for the next wave of teens in our 4-H leadership programs! THANKS so much !!


If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to e-mail us. We certainly appreciate your help to make the
best better" for the next wave of teens in our 4-H leadership programs!











Questionnaire


Youth-Adult Partnerships (YAP) in 4-H


--YOUTH VERSION---


Since 2004, Florida 4-H has offered counties opportunities to engage youth and volunteers together in partnerships to
deliver targered 4-H programs within their communities. This survey is to help us evaluate these Youth-Adult
Partnerships (YAP) experiences from youth and adult participants for program improvements. Please complete the
following items. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential.

Tell Us About oIur'eo


Name
FIISTr


Project Location (City/Town)

1. What ii your gender? (Check one)
F Female
H Male

2. How do you describe yourself? (Check all that ap4fvl


Errnicar.
D Hispanic
[ Not Hispanic


County


Race:
L White/Caucasian
L Black/African-American
] American Indian/Alaskan Native
] Asian
L Native Hawailan/Olher Pacific Islander
1 Other


3. How old are you? __ years

4. How many years have you participated in 4-H? years

5. Please select one that best describes the area in which you live. (Check one)
SRural/Farm
H Suburban
H Urban/Ciry
SOther


7. Indicate the number of opportunities you had to facilitate each of the following YAP programs with others.
Did not
fa e 1-3 -6 7-9 10-12 13 or nre
faditat e
Health Rocks!
Operation Miliary Kids (OMKISOMK)
YEAH! Healthy lifestyles
Learning and Leading
Youth-Adult Partnership
EYSC Community Forum
Other


If you chose "Other" in the previous question, please describe the Youth-Adult Partnership experience you
facilitated:











8. Which of the following statements about participating on a 4-H Youth-Adult Partnership teaching team best
describes you? (Check one)
I've never participated on a tea ching team.
1 I've never participated on a teaching team, but would like the opportunity to.
I I currently serve on a teaching team, but do not feel it is a partnership between youth and adults.
I currently serve on a teaching team that provides an equal partnership between youth and adults.



9. Which of the following statements about 4-H Youth-Adult Partnership planning committees or advisory boards best
describes you? fCheck one)
1 I've never participated on a board or committee.
1 I've never participated on a board or committee, but would like the opportunity to.
I currently serve on a board or committee, but do not feel it is a partnership between youth and adults.
H I currently serve on a board or committee that provides an equoiportnership between youth and adults.



10. How ma ny committees or decision-making boards with only youth members have you served on
(Check one)

] None ] 1-5 ] 6-10 ] 11-15 H 16 or more



11. How ma ny committees or decision-making boards with youth and adult members have you experienced?
(Check one)

] None ] 1-5 ] 6-10 ] 11-15 H 15 or more



12. How many public committees or decision-making boards (i.e. library, school/PTA, fire/rescue, EOC, church/faith-
based, hospital/medical, etc.) have you served on? (Check one)

0 None 0 1-3 O 4-6 F 7-9 O 10-12 H 13 or more



13. Complete the following staten-ent Ba;ed on my experiences as a committee/board member, I have:
H always been accepted as a contributing member.
H only been a token member.
] experienced both being a contributing memberand a token member.












YOUTH-ADULT PARTNERHP (YAP) EXPERIENCES:


When completing this part of the survey, think of your most recent4-H Youth-Adult Partnerkth;p c ornrunity project
and the youth and adults in your group/team. The purpose of this section is to provide us with your opinion on youth-
adult interactions.

Place an "X" in the box that you feel is the most accurate statement. For example, if you feel the statement on the right
or left best describes your situation, you would place an "" in the box closest to that statement. I y*ou believe that both
statements are accurate or somewhat accurate, then you would place an "X" at or near the middle. See the example
below.

EXAMPLE

Youth & adults have lots of fun. X Youth & adults do not have lots of fun.


14. Your opinion about youth involvement:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Youth were given little or no Youth were given major
responsibilities for specific tasks responsibilities for specific tasks
or assignments. or assignments.
Youth made few decisions for
Youth relied on themselves to
themselves, often relying on the Y h reled on s
make key decisions.
decisions of adults- ma.ke key decsio___
Youth had very little access to Youth had full access to
information that was needed to information that was needed to
make decisions. make decisions.
Youth never had the opportunity Youth always had the
to discuss their concerns about opportunity to discuss their
group decisions. concerns about group decisions.
Youth rarely shared ideas about Youth frequently shared ideas
things that mattered to them that mattered to them regarding
regarding this project. this project
Youth did not have an equal
Youth did not have an equal Youth had an equal vote in the
vote in the decision-akingkin process.
decision-making process.
process.
Youth were not fully committed Youth were fully committed to
to their duties. their duties.

Youth had little or no interest in Youth were very excited about
their involvement with tis
being involved with this project their involvement with this
project.
Youth were not concerned with Youth were very concerned with
community change community change.












15. Your opinion a bout adult involvement:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10
Adults always took over Adults never totally took over
everything when working on everything when working on
project a activities project activities.
Adults displayed a sense Adults displayed a willingness to
Adults displayed a sense of
accept and nurture youth
wanting to control youth accept and nurture youth
_leadership.
Adults failed to provide youth Adults gave youth full access to
with information that was any information that was
needed to make decisions. needed to make decisions.
Adults rarely communicated Adults often shared their
their concerns about group concerns about group decisions
decisions with youth, with youth.
Adults encouraged
Adults commanded youth to Adults encouraged
youth to come up with
follow the directions of adults youth to come up w
their own ideas.
Adults never listened to the Adults always listened to the
suggestions of youth, suggestions of youth.
Adults were not fully committed Adults were fully committed to
to their duties. their duties.
Adults had no interest in being Adults were very excited about
involved with this project. being involved with the project.
Adults were not very concerned Adults were very concerned with
with community change. community change.

16. Your opinion of Youth-Adult interactions within your last 4- YAP experience:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10
There was as rg ing/rern ion Youth and adults got along well
among youth and adults. together.
Youth appeared intimidated by Youth seemed comfortable
adults. working with adults.
Adults seemed comfortable
Adults appeared afraid of youth Aduts ed comfortable
working with youth.
Adults did not consult with Adults actively and consistently
Adults did not consult with
consulted with youth on project
youth on project activities at all.
a__tivities.
Youth and adults rarely agreed Youth and adults often agreed
with one another. on most decisions.
Adults provided little or no Adults provided direction and
Adults provided direction and
direction and mentoring for
myoth entering for youth.
youth.
Youth and adults worked
Youth and adults worked
separately on project tatogether as partners on project
separately on project tasks.
tasks.

Youth and adults learned little Youth and adults indicated
from one another mutual learning from one
from one another.
another.
Youth and adults always
Youth and adults never engaged Youth and adults always
engaged in respectful
in respectful conversations enae in
conversations.












17. Please share witt us any changes you have made in your knowledge and practices as a result of being engaged in a
Youth-Adult Partnership YAPF). Check your practices BEFORE participating and AFTER participating.
BEFORE partipating AFTER participating in
in a 4- Youth-Adult a 4-H Youth-Adult
Partnership... Partnership...

I r X j j p

I was responsible for teaching others.
I acted as a mentor to youth.
I planned learning activities.
I was confident in helping others.
I was a confident board/committee member.
I confident in myself overall.
I believed I had an important impact on my community.
I knew how to identify issues within my community.
I wanted to be more involved in my community.
I was committed to my community.
I worked to make my community better place.

18. How much of an i impact would you say your Youth-Adult Partnership programs had on your community?
(Check one)
None F Alittle F Some A lot

19. How important is itto you to have an impact on making your community a better place? (Check one)
Very important E Somewhat important H Not reallythat important Hi Notatall


20. Do you have any plans to continue any form ofcommunity service or outreach?
(Check one)
Definitelv ] Probably H Maybe D I doubt it


- Not at this time


21. What barriers might keep you from continuing to be involved in your community?
(Check off that opphly
F School and other activities
Job
Time for friends orfamily
D I don't find it interesting
I don't see how it would benefit me
H I see it as something only high school students should be involved in

22. Would you share any other comments about what your experiences or opportunities gained as a result of
participating in these 4-H youth-adult partnership experiences?











HEALTHY UFESTYLES PROGRAMS


Since 2004, Florida 4-H has been involved in several programs which support two state-wide initiatives: promoting
Healthy Lifestyles and combating Childhood Obesity. Please help us determine the impact of these programs by
continuing to answer these last questions.

23. As part of a 4-H Youth-Adult Partnership team, how many opportunities have you had to educate others on healthy
lifestyles? Check one)
] None ] 1-3 ] 4-6 ] 7-9 F 10-12 13 or more

24. What commu nity partners were you able to team up with in this effort? {Check oil that apply)
H Local schools
] Other Youth Groups(i.e. E.oy/Girl Scouts, religious or sports groups)
] County Department of Health
r N4nprorit Eroups (such as American HeartAssociation, American Diabetes Association)
H Other

25. What other resources did you seek out in support of this effort? (Check al that appfy)
H Local sponsors
] Local fundraising activities
] Grant writing
H Other

26. As part of being engaged in the 4-H Healthy Lifestyles programs, please share with us any changes you, your family,
your 4-Hgroup and others have made in nutritional knowledge/practices or physical activity as a result of your
participation in this program. Check practices BEFORE participating and AFTER participating.


BEFORE this program... AFTER this program...


Y I our Personal
5 a Practices
I read nutrition labels on food items.
I exercise at least 60 minutes
(30 minutes for adults) a day.
I aaeat at least 5 fruits
or vegetables daily.
I reduced the amount of
TV or screen time.
I educate myself about nutrition and healthy food
preparation/choices.
I share what I have
learned with others.
I monitor the amount of food
(serving portions) I consume.
I limit the amount of fat
or sugar in my diet.












Impacts on My Family:
BEFORE this program... AFTERthis program..


Sa I II encourage ny family members to...


Read nutrition labels on food items.
Exercise at least 60 minutes (30 for adults) a day.
Eat at least 5 fruits or vegetables daily.
Make healthier food/food preparation choices.
Monitor the amount of food
(serving portions) consumed.
Limit the amount of fat or sugar consumed.


Impact o-n 4-H: At 4-1H MecLings and Events, we have:
Red uced the amount of unhea thy
food choices for snacks/canteen.
Improved the nutritional choices for meal functions at
camp, other events.
Increased the opportunities for physical activities
Conducted educational activities to teach 4--lers
about making healthier choices.


Impact on Others: As a result of this 4-H Program:
I encourage healthier food choices among my friends.
I encourage changes in physical
activity levels among my friends.
I have been engaged in community health
events to encourage healthier lifestyle choices.
I have been engaged in campaigns to make
changes in my school environments (vending
machines, lunches, physical education)
I have participated in community projects to help
improve physical activity or recreation opportunities.




27. Rank the following according to how much influence you believe you had in changing healthy lifestyle behaviors:
(1 as the greatest influence, 7 as the least influence)
Rank
Your family
Other 4-H members
4-H club meetings or events
Your friends
Classmates
Within your school
Others in your community


100










APPENDIX B
ITEM RESULTS FROM JONES' (2004) IIRS


Table B-1. Youth involvement items means comparisons
Group 1 Both Group 3 No
Training and Group 2 Only Training or
Overall Facilitation Facilitation Facilitation
Responsibilities for
M=7.48 M=8.09 M=7.35 M=7.00
specific tasks or
scor SD=1.994 SD=2.068 SD=2.032 SD=1.715
assignments
Reliance on themselves M=6.82 M=7.60 M=6.60 M=6.44
to make key decisions SD=2.081 SD=1.142 SD=2.285 SD=2.281
Access to information
M=7.53 M=8.77 M=7.22 M=6.67
needed to make
needed to make SD=2.239 SD=1.541 SD=2.304 SD=2.275
decisions
Opportunity to discuss
M=8.14 M=8.82 M=7.87 M=7.89
concerns with the
concerns with the SD=2.055 SD=1.893 SD=2.215 SD=1.779
group
Frequency of sharing M=7.72 M=8.59 M=7.68 M=6.78
ideas that mattered to
ideas that mattered to SD=2.360 SD=2.175 SD=2.368 SD=2.290
them
Equality of vote in the M=7.81 M=8.38 M=7.65 M=7.50
decision-making SD=2.039 SD=1.875 SD=2.058 SD=2.176
process
Commitment to their
M=7.37 M=8.14 M=7.50 M=6.17
duties within the
te t teSD=2.190 SD=2.100 SD=2.100 SD=2.093
project
Excitement about their M=7.55 M=8.50 M=7.52 M=6.44
involvement SD=2.031 SD=1.336 SD=2.136 SD=2.007
Concern with community M=7.68 M=9.14 M=7.33 M=6.67
change SD=2.073 SD=1.125 SD=2.056 SD=2.142











Table B-2. Adult involvement items means comparisons
Group 1 Both Group 3 No
Training and Group 2 Only Training or
Overall Facilitation Facilitation Facilitation
Dividing responsibilities M=6.39 M=7.41 M=5.65 M=6.78
for specific tasks or
for specific tasks or SD=2.247 SD=2.130 SD=2.202 SD=1.987
assignments
Reliance on youth to M=6.85 M=7.86 M=6.23 M=7.00
make key decisions SD=2.407 SD=2.175 SD=2.630 SD=1.749
Providing youth with
access to information M=7.65 M=8.41 M=7.18 M=7.78
needed for make SD=2.171 SD=2.130 SD=2.319 SD=1.629
decisions
Communicating concerns M=7.96 M=8.68 M=7.77 M=7.50
with the group SD=1.990 SD=1.961 SD=2.032 SD=1.790
Encouragement of youth M=7.64 M=8.77 M=7.15 M=7.33
to share ideas that
to sSD=2.296 SD=1.716 SD=2.402 SD=2.301
mattered to them
Provision of equal vote for
M=7.50 M=8.36 M=6.78 M=8.06
youth in the decision- SD=2.068 SD=1.649 SD=2.259 SD=1.514
making process
Commitment to their M=8.34 M=9.00 M=7.83 M=8.71
duties within the project SD=1.839 SD=1.380 SD=2.159 SD=1.105
Excitement about their M=7.99 M=8.64 M=7.56 M=8.11
involvement SD=2.109 SD=1.989 SD=2.315 SD=1.605
Concern with community M=8.11 M=9.45 M=7.59 M=7.61
change SD=2.019 SD=0.963 SD=2.233 SD=1.787

Table B-3. Youth-adult interaction items means comparisons


Getting along well

Perceived youth
interactions with adults
Perceived adult
interactions with youth
Frequency of
communication
between the groups
Agreement between the
groups
Provision of direction
and mentoring
Level of partnership
when working on a
project
Level of mutual learning
Quality of
communication
between groups


Overall
M=7.78
SD=2.036
M=7.79
SD=2.032
M=8.58
SD=1.795
M=7.94
SD=1.877
M=7.51
SD=2.087
M=8.42
SD=1.844
M=7.68
SD=2.175
M=7.76
SD=2.007
M=8.47
SD=1.756


Group 1 Both
Training and
Facilitation
M=8.36
SD=2.013
M=8.77
SD=1.412
M=8.86
SD=1.885
M=8.82
SD=1.053
M=8.27
SD=1.667
M=9.14
SD=0.941
M=8.41
SD=2.016
M=8.90
SD=1.513
M=8.71
SD=1.821


Group 2 Only
Facilitation
M=7.60
SD=2.036
M=7.48
SD=2.2331
M=8.53
SD=1.783
M=7.60
SD=2.122
M=7.10
SD=2.329
M=8.13
SD=2.078
M=7.28
SD=2.320
M=7.15
SD=2.155
M=8.45
SD=1.739


Group 3 No
Training or
Facilitation
M=7.47
SD=2.035
M=8.12
SD=1.654
M=8.35
SD=1.766
M=7.59
SD=1.805
M=7.47
SD=1.772
M=8.18
SD=1.976
M=7.71
SD=1.863
M=7.76
SD=1.602
M=8.24
SD=1.786


102









LIST OF REFERENCES


Agee, V. L. (1979). Treatment of the violent incorrigible adolescent. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring
and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Beyond the "village"
rhetoric: Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied
Developmental Science, 2(3), 138-159.

Benson, P. L., & Pittman, K. J. (2001). Moving the youth development message:
Turning a vague idea into a moral imperative. In P. L. Benson & K. J. Pittman
(Eds.), Trends in youth development: Visions, realities, and challenges (pp. 3-50).
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Benson, P. L., Williams, D., & Johnson, A. (1987). The quicksilver years: The hopes and
fears of early adolescence. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Blum, R.W., & Rinehart, P. M. (2001). Reducing the risk: Connections that make a
difference in the lives of youth. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Division of
General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health.

Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our
hope for the future. Bloomington, Ind: National Educational Service.

Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and
evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148.

Camino, L. (2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work
and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4(11).

Catalano, R., Berglund, M., Ryan, J., Lonczak, H., & Hawkins, J. (2002). Positive youth
development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive
youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1), doi:10.1037/1522-
3736.5.1.515a.

Clarke, R. V. G. & Cornish, D. B. (1978). The effectiveness of residential treatment for
delinquents. In L. A. Hersov, M. Berger & D. Shaffer (Eds.), Aggression and
antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence (pp. 143-159). Oxford : Pergamon
Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


103









Cooper, J. R., Altman, F., Brown, B. S. & Czechowicz, D. (1983). Research on the
treatment of narcotic addiction: State of the art. Rockville, MD : U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Treatment Research Monograph Series.

De Leon, G. & Ziegenfuss, J. T. (Eds.) (1986). Therapeutic communities for addictions.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

De Vaus, D. (2001) Research design in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Delgado, M. (2002). New frontiers for youth development in the twenty-first century:
Revitalizing & broadening youth development. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Denner, J., Meyer, B., & Bean, S. (2005). Young women's leadership alliance: Youth-
adult partnerships in an all-female after-school program. Journal of Community
Psychology, 33(1), 87-100.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth
development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Fass, P. S. (2004). Encyclopedia of children and childhood: In history and society. New
York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Friedman, A. & Beschner, G. M. (1985). Treatment services for adolescent substance
abusers. Rockville, MD : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Gold, M. & Mann, D. W. (1984). Expelled to a friendlier place: A study of effective
alternative schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Guzman, L., Lippman, L., Moore, K. A., & O'Hare, W. (2003, July). How children are
doing: The mismatch between public perception and statistical reality (Research
Brief #2003-12).Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Hart, R. A. (1997). Children's participation: The theory and practice of involving young
citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan
Publications Ltd.

Heywood, C. (2001). A history of childhood: Children and childhood in the West from
medieval to modern times. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.


104









Huebner, A., Mancini, J., Bowen, G., & Orthner, D. (2009). Shadowed by war: Building
community capacity to support military families. Family Relations, 58(2), 216-228.

Hughes, D. M., & Curnan, S. P. (2000). Community youth development: A framework
for action. Community Youth Development Journal, 1, 7-11.

Isaac, S. & Michael, W. B. (1971). Handbook in research and evaluation: For education
and the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: EdITS Publishers.

Jae-Nam, L., & Young-Gul, K. (1999). Effect of partnership quality on IS outsourcing
success: Conceptual framework and empirical validation. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 15(4), 29-61.

Janz, N. K. & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health
Education Quarterly, 11, 1-47.

Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A
longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press.

Jones, K. R. (2004). An assessment of perceptions and experiences in community-
based youth-adult relationships. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State
University, United States -- Pennsylvania. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3157669).

Jones, K.R. (2006). Youth-adult partnerships: Are you there yet? How to evaluate your
4-H youth development program. Cooperative Extension Service. Lexington, KY:
University of Kentucky.

Jones, K. R., & Perkins, D. F. (2005a). Youth-adult partnerships. In C. B. Fisher and R.
M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science (pp. 1159-1163).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jones, K. R., & Perkins, D. F. (2005b). Determining the quality of youth-adult
relationships within community-based youth programs. Journal of Extension, 43,
Article 5FEA5. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/a5.php

Jones, K., & Perkins, D. (2006). Youth and adult perceptions of their relationships within
community-based youth programs. Youth & Society, 38(1), 90-109.

Konopka, G. (1973). Requirements for healthy development of adolescent youth.
Adolescence, 8(31), 2-25.

Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55, 170-183.

Lerner, R. M. (1995). America's youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs
and policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


105









Lerner, R. M. (2002). Adolescence: Development, diversity, context, and application.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R., Lerner, J., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005).
Positive youth development, participation in community youth development
programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the
first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71. doi:10.1177/0272431604272461.

Little, R. R. (1993). What's working for today's youth: The issues, the programs, and the
earnings. Paper presented at the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families Fellows'
Colloquium, Michigan State University.

Lofquist, W. A. (1989). The spectrum of attitudes: Building a theory of youth
development. New Designs for Youth Development, 9, 3-6.

Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.

Mackintosh, M. (1992) Partnership: issues of policy and negotiation, Local Economy, 7,
210-224.

McLaughlin, M. W. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for
youth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.

Mitra, D. L. (2002). Makin' it real: Involving youth in school reform. Ph.D. dissertation,
Stanford University, United States -- California. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from
Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3038124).

National 4-H Council. (2007a). Engaging youth, serving community: Final report.
(Document No. EYSC005). Chevy Chase, MD.

National 4-H Council. (2007b). Youth-adult partnerships in community decision making.
(Document No. YAP001). Chevy Chase, MD: Zeldin, S., Petrokubi, J, and MacNeil,
C.

National 4-H Council. (2009). "Health Rocks!": 4-H healthy life series intermediate level.
(Document No. 08381). Chevy Chase, MD: Fox, M.

Norman, J. (2001). Building effective youth-adult partnerships. Transitions, 14.
Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http:www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/transitions 1401_7.htm

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.


106









Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs. cooperative learning. Retrieved
October 15, 2009, from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-
learning/panitz-paper.cfm

Pittman, K. J. (2000). Balancing the equation: Communities supporting youth, youth
supporting communities. Community Youth Development Journal, 1(1), 33-36.

Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J. & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the
Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175-183.

Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific
research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Schultz, J. A. (1995). The knowledge of childhood in the German Middle Ages, 1100-
1350. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sheehan, K., & McMillan, S. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An
exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 45-54.

Spector, P. E. (1981). Research designs. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Villarruel, F. A., Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., & Keith, J. G. (Eds.). (2003). Community
youth development: Programs, policies, and practices. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Walker, J. (2006). Intentional youth programs: Taking theory to practice. New directions
for youth development. 112, 75-92.

Walker, J., Marczak, M., Blyth, D., & Borden, L. (2005). Designing youth development
programs: Toward a theory of developmental intentionally. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson,
& J. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development Extracurricular
activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 399-418). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 3, 81-85.

Wolff, T. (2001). The future of community coalition building. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 29(2), 263-268.

Zeldin, S. (2000). Integrating research and practice to understand and strengthen
communities for adolescent development: An introduction to the special issue and
current issues. Applied Developmental Science, 42.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jessica Kochert is a true native of Gainesville, Florida. After graduating from

Eastside High School, she attended Santa Fe Community College, where she received

her associate's degree in elementary education. She transferred to the University of

Florida to complete her studies in elementary education with a bachelor's degree in

elementary education with a specialization in middle grade science. Following her

completion of this degree, she took a teaching position at The Rock School, Gainesville,

Florida. After teaching for six years, she returned to the University of Florida to pursue

the role of a master's student in the Department of Family, Youth and Community

Sciences. After this degree, she will complete her formal education with a Ph.D. in

Agricultural Education and Communications with a focus on Extension Education at the

University of Florida.


108





PAGE 1

1 AN EVALUATION OF YOUTH -ADULT PARTNERSHIPS IN FLORIDA 4 -H YOUTH PROGRAMS By JESSICA L. KOCHERT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Jessica L. Kochert

PAGE 3

3 To al l those who have believed in me

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Education has long been a passion of mine thanks to the foundations that my mother and father instilled in m e from a very young age. The work that I have done in my m asters program, and that I will continue to do as a doctoral student, is a direct result of the love, support, and passion for learning that they have both ensured I felt throughout my life. Without them, I would not be where I am today. However, the paths of life twist and turn, with many characters to meet along the way. Some play the antagonist in your life story, while others provide guidance and wisdom for making the travel less arduous. I woul d like to thank Dr. Joy Jordan for her continual support, guidance, and wisdom over the past several years as my journey has taken me through the realm of Florida 4-H. I have learned so much from her example and am grateful for the lessons she has shared. I could not have asked for a better mentor to help me begin my graduate work. I am eternally grateful. I would also like to thank Dr. Nicole Stedman, Dr. Larry Forthun, and Dr. Dale Pracht for serving on my committee. The expertise that they allowed me to glean from them has served me well, thus far, and I look forward to the day I can call them not only mentors, but colleagues and friends. Thanks to each of you for all you did to assist me through this part of my journey. Finally, I would like to thank Flo rida 4 -H for the opportunity to become a part of a beautiful program and wonderful history of helping youth become the best they can be. Thank you for welcoming me in and making me a part of the 4-H family. As our journey continues, and paths diverge, may we still continue to make the best better.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... 4 page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ 8 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11 Background ................................................................................................................. 11 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 14 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 15 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................. 15 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 16 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 16 2 LITER ATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 18 From Positive Youth Development to Community Youth Development ................... 18 Community Youth Development (CYD) A Definiti on .............................................. 22 The Theory of Developmental Intentionality Defined ............................................. 25 Problematic Perceptions of Youth and Adults: A History of Youth-Ad ult Relationships ........................................................................................................... 29 Current Trends in Youth-Adult Relationships ............................................................ 30 Youth-Adult Partnerships: A Definition ....................................................................... 33 Youth-Adult Partnerships within Florida 4 -H .............................................................. 35 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 43 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 43 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 43 Unit of Analysis ........................................................................................................... 44 Population and Sample .............................................................................................. 44 Instrument Design ....................................................................................................... 45 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 51 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 52 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 56 Demographics of Youth Participants .......................................................................... 56 Levels of Involvement between Youth with Various Levels of YAP Experience ...... 58

PAGE 6

6 Participation within YAP Training ........................................................................ 59 Facilitation of YAP Opportunities within the Community .................................... 59 Serving on Committees and Boards within the Community ............................... 61 Perceived Levels of Involvement within the YouthAdult Partnership ................ 63 Perceived Quality of Interactions between Youth and Adults for Youth with Various Levels of YAP Experience ......................................................................... 66 In teractions on Teaching Teams and Committees/Boards ................................ 66 Interactions within Committees and/or Boards ................................................... 68 Perceived Quality of Inter actions within the Youth Adult Partnership ................ 68 Potential for Continued Community Engagement for Youth with Various Levels of YAP Experience .................................................................................................. 70 Perceived Impacts within the Community ........................................................... 71 Commitment to the Community ........................................................................... 75 5 CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, R ECOMMENDATIO NS ..................................... 78 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 78 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 80 Levels of Involvement .......................................................................................... 80 Quality of Interactions .......................................................................................... 82 Potential for Continued Community Engagement ............................................... 84 Discussions ................................................................................................................. 86 Youth-Adult Partnerships in Florida 4-H .............................................................. 86 Intentionality within the YAP Programming ......................................................... 89 Continued Community Engagement ................................................................... 90 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 91 More YouthAdult Partnership 4 -H Training for Staff and Volunteers ................ 91 More Intentional Training for County Youth-Adult Partnership Teams .............. 91 Further Evaluati on and Research of Youth -Adult Partnerships ......................... 92 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION ................................................................................................. 93 Informed Consent ....................................................................................................... 93 Questionnaire.............................................................................................................. 94 B ITEM RESULTS FROM JONES (2004) IIRS .......................................................... 101 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 103 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................................. 108

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 -1 Categorized items within community post -th en question ..................................... 50 4 -1 Facilitation of youth adult partnership community trainings .................................. 60 4 -2 Between group mean comparisons of YAP faci litation opportunities ................... 61 4 -3 Committees and board service within the community .......................................... 62 4 -4 Group paired ANCOVA results for youth onl y committees and board service within the community .............................................................................................. 63 4 -5 Group paired ANCOVA results for youth involvement sub -scale ......................... 64 4 -6 Gr oup paired ANCOVA results for transformed adult involvement sub -scale ..... 65 4 -7 Crosstab results for interactions on teaching teams ............................................. 67 4 -8 Crosstab results for interactions on committees ................................................... 67 4 -9 Crosstab results for defined committee role .......................................................... 68 4 -10 Group paired ANCOVA results for transformed youthadult interaction sub scale ........................................................................................................................ 70 4 -11 Categorized items within community post -then question ..................................... 71 4 -12 Cronbachs alpha reliability for each category ...................................................... 72 4 -13 Mixed between within subjects ANOVA results for engagement ......................... 72 4 -14 Mixed between within subjects ANOVA results for confidence ............................ 73 4 -15 Group paired ANCOVA results for impact of YAP program ................................. 74 4 -1 6 Mixed between within subjects ANOVA results for commitment .......................... 75 4 -17 Group paired ANCOVA results for importance of personal involvement within the community ........................................................................................................ 76 4 -18 Group paired ANCOVA results for plans for continued involvement within the community .............................................................................................................. 77

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ANCOVA Analysis of Covariance ANOVA Analysis of Variance CYD Community Youth Development DOH Department of Health EYSC Engaging Youth, Serving Communities HR Health Rocks! curriculum IIRS Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale LL Learning and Leading curriculum OMK Operation Military Kids program USDA United States Department of Agriculture YAP Youth-Adult Partnerships YEAH! Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Maste r of Science AN EVALUATION OF YOUTH -ADULT PARTNERSHIPS IN FLORIDA 4 -H YOUTH PROGRAMS By Jessica L. Kochert August 2010 Chair: Joy Jordan Major: Family, Youth and Community Science s The past two decades have seen an increase in the desire to build genuine, effective partnerships between youth and adults, focused on addressing the needs and concerns of both within community based youth programs. One result from this focus has been the development of the Youth-Adult Partnership (YAP) model. Within the Flo rida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement the YAP model. While these programs have been implemented over the past five years within Florida, no evaluation had yet been performed on the effectiveness of this programming model for participa nts within the state. This research sought to identify the impact of various levels of Youth-Adult Partnership experience and training on levels of involvement and quality of interactions within the partnership, as well as potential for continued engagement within the community Three groups of youth were identified within this study: 1) those who participated in YAP trainings and who facilitated YAP experiences within their communities, 2) those who believe they facilitated YAP experiences within their com munities without having participated in a state-led YAP training program, and 3) those who had never participated in either a stateled YAP training nor facilitated any YAP experiences within their community.

PAGE 10

10 Results indicate that youth who were trained in the YAP model were significantly more likely to perceive the levels of youth involvement within the project more positively than either of their counterparts those who only facilitated YAP opportunities and those who neither received YAP training nor fa cilitation opportunities. Trained youth also showed significantly higher perceptions regarding the levels of adult involvement and quality of interactions between youth and adults than those who only facilitated YAP opportunities without YAP training. In r egards to potential for continued community engagement, youth who were trained in the YAP model scored both their confidence level following participation and their perception of the importance of personal involvement within the community significantly hig her than those youth who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Therefore, strong indications exist in support of Walkers Theory of Intentionality through the significant increases that occurred between the groups as more intentional program training and opportunities were provided.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background It is often said that children are our future. They are the ones who will soon be responsible for making crucial decisions about what our communities and nation will b ecome; they define our tomorrow. Yet the youth of today are faced with more challenges than previous generations, and most are allowed to simply haphazardly meander through their existence without any true purpose or direction and without the building of f oundational skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, leadership, or commitment to causes outside of themselves. Brendtro, Brokenleg, and Van Bockern (1990) stated that, The evolution of North American culture has placed young people in a powerle ss situation, in which they have no meaningful role in society. Persons without a sense of autonomy come to see themselves as pawns in a world where others control their destiny (p. 41). They simply exist in a world run by adults for adults waiting for th e day that they too will be deemed capable of making meaningful contributions to their world. The failure of communities to engage their citizenship in total civic engagement is, unfortunately, all too common (Jones, 2004; Wolff, 2001). This lack of engag ement is especially true of those impacted most by the decision-making process, such as at -risk families and youth (Jones, 2004). In addition to this failure of engagement on the part of communities, adults within these communities have also been found to be, at best, ambivalent about youth and their potential to fill roles of leadership within their communities (Guzman, Lippman, Moore, & OHare, 2003; Jones, 2004; Jones & Perkins, 2006; Zeldin, 2000). Over the past several decades, a shift has occurred in the

PAGE 12

12 presence of parents in the lives of their children, many of whom are either being raised in single parent or multiple-income households. This change, in addition to the decline of extended family and friendly neighborhoods, has led to an increasingly v ulnerable generation of youth (Brendtro et al., 1990). The only setting in which ongoing, longterm youth adult relationships are being provided to all youth is found within the educational system (Brendtro et al., 1990). However most relationships formed in this setting are often impersonal, where students and teachers do not relate to one another as whole persons, but in narrow circumscribed roles (Brendtro et al., 1990, p.10), and are prone to deterioration over the progression of time as the youth mov es through each subsequent level of the educational system (Benson, Williams, & Johnson, 1987). This lack of meaningful, satisfying relationships between youth and adults gives light to the growing importance and need for positive youth development program s designed to establish and maintain relationships between youth and adults within the community while developing a wide range of skills necessary for both present and future success. According to Zeldin (2000), the field of positive youth development finds its strongest historical roots in nonprofit, community based youth organizations such as 4 -H, Boys and Girls Club, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America. Many of these programs provide by their very nature frequent, positive youthadult exchang es through regular interactions. Recent developments within several of these programs have begun to place an increasing importance on the invaluable contributions youth can make now in their local communities. These opportunities provide a stark contrast t o other findings within the realm of youth development, such as those reported by Benson in which youth have reported the role of serving as positive contributors within their

PAGE 13

13 communities as among the least common experiences for young people today (as c ited in Jones, 2004, p. 1). Through the adoption of programmatic models designed specifically to enrich youthadult relationships, some of these programs have concurrently built the skills and relationships necessary for youth to become strong, capable leaders of tomorrow through the use of youthadult partnerships. The 2007 YouthAdult Partnerships in Community Decision Making reports, Youth participation the direct involvement of youth in shaping the direction and operation of their programs, organizat ions, communities is perhaps the most innovative practice that has emerged from the field of positive youth development (National 4 -H Council, 2007b, p. 1). Out of this concept of youth participation has emerged the building of genuine, effective partne rships between youth and adults for the addressing of needs and concerns from both sets of members (National 4-H Council, 2007b). Youthadult partnerships have been a distinguishing part of the 4 -H Program since the inception of the program at the turn of the 20th century as researchers from state land-grant colleges and universities, in corroboration with the United States Department of Agriculture, sought to illuminate the potential of young people to change their rural communities for the better (National 4H Council, 2007b, p. iii). While great changes have occurred over the last century, the 4-H Program has faithfully continued in its mission to reach out to the youth of the day with opportunities to become tomorrows leaders through the skills they learn today. No matter the program area, the 4-H Program seeks to build leaders through skills in leadership, self discipline, and critical thinking. Programs based on the youthadult partnership model

PAGE 14

14 reinforce those crucial skills as youth learn to be come confident contributors within their communities through the formation of partnerships with local adults to accomplish certain objectives. These partnerships are essential to ensuring that youth learn through opportunities in which they master life ch allenges, cultivate independence with the guidance of caring adults, gain senses of belonging within a positive group, and share their spirits of generosity towards others (National 4-H Council, 2007b, p. iii). Problem Statement According to Camino (2000), youthadult partnerships are multidimensional, consisting of three dimensions: principles and values, which give direction to the relationship while guiding behavior; sets of skills and competencies designed to focus behaviors; and a method through whic h collective action may be implemented and achieved. Within the Florida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement the youthadult partnership (YAP) model. These programs include Health Rocks! (HR), Operation: Military Kids (OMK), Learning an d Leading (LL), Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health ( YEAH! ), and Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC). This research seeks to identify the effectiveness of these youthadult partnerships within the Florida 4 -H Youth Development Program. Two dist inct groups were identified for comparison including 1) those that have participated in both YAP trainings and opportunities, and 2) those that participated in other 4 -H leadership opportunities (such as Executive Board) but had not participated in any YAP training. This research would then examine the quality of youth adult partnerships within the Florida 4-H programs as well as the relationships between each of these groups and:

PAGE 15

15 the levels of civic engagement; the perceived quality interactions between youth and adults; and the potential for continued engagement within the community upon completion of the program. Research Questions RQ 1 How do levels of involvement differ between youth who have participated in various levels of YAP experiences? RQ 2 How does perceived quality of interactions between youth and adults differ between youth who have participated in various levels of YAP experiences? RQ 3 How does the potential for continued community engagement differ between youth who have participated in various levels of YAP experiences? Hypotheses H1 Youth who have specifically participated in youth adult partnership trainings within the Florida 4 -H YAP programs between 2004 and 2009 will exhibit higher levels of involvement than those youth who have not been trained in the youthadult partnership model H2 Youth who have s pecifically participated in youth adult partnership trainings will report higher perceived quality of interactions between youth and adults within their program than those youth who have not been trained in the youth adult partnership model H3 Youth who have specifically participated in youth adult partnership trainings will exhibit higher potential for continued community engagement than those youth who have not been trained in the youthadult partnership model.

PAGE 16

16 Limitations The samples taken within this study were limited to only those YAP training participants who had valid personal e mail addresses on file and those non YAP participants who attended the s econd 2009-2010 Executive Board meeting. The choice to not include 4 -H members without leadership roles was made at the discretion of the researcher. Some youth within this study participated in YAP programs over five years ago. This historical issue could cloud memories of involvement and interactions, causing some validity within the reported data. Definition of Terms 4 -H A non-formal youth development program, implemented through a partnership between the United States Department of Agriculture and land -grant universities. Offered to youth ages 5 to 18 years old, this program utilizes an experiential learning model through which youth learn by doing. ADULT Individual whose age was greater than 18, and no longer qualified for membership as a 4-H member at the time of participation in a youth adult partnership. ADVISORY An opportunity presented within a youth adult partnership COMMITTEE model which allows youth and adult teams to plan and implement programs of interest based on issues identified wit hin the community. COLLABORATION Occurs w hen both adults and youth are included within the decision making process, at least on some level. Collaborations allow the non-dominant group to receive some voice on the direction and implementation of programmin g decisions, though final say remains with the dominant group. CONTINUED COMMUNITY The perceived level of impact and commitment to the ENGAGEMENT community of youth based on their youthadult partnership experience. CONTRIBUTORY MEMBER A role within a youth adult interaction in which a youth feels they have a true voice in the discussion and outcome. LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT The perceived and actual level of active involvement for youth or adult within a youthadult partnership setting.

PAGE 17

17 PLANNING COMMITTEE An opportunity presented within a youth adult partnership model which encourages youth and adult teams to utilize decision making skills to plan a specific event or activity within the community. PARTNERSHIP Occurs when the relationship between youth an d adults allows for the opportunity to partner together in a balanced harmony of power and voice in order to reach a desired set of goals through civic engagement, program planning and/or community development initiatives. This balanced harmony of power demands equal potential in making decisions, utilizing skills, mutual learning, and promoting change. QUALITY OF INTERACTION The perceived quality of interactions between youth and adult within a youthadult partnership setting. TEACHING TEAM An opportunit y presented within a youth adult partnership model which allows youth and adult teams to educate others within the community on a pertinent issue. TOKEN MEMBER A role within a youthadult interaction in which a youth feels they do not have a true voice in the discussion and outcome. Instead, the youth feels they are simply there to provide the perception of inclusion for the youth voice in a situation. YOUT H Individual whose age was between 11 and 18 and who qualified for membership as a 4-H member during their participation in a youth adult partnership. YAP EXPERIENCE The culmination of trainings and/or facilitation opportunities that a youth or adult has been able to participate in within a youth adult partnership setting. YAP FACILITATION A setting in which youth and adults are able to apply the skills OPPORTUNITY they have learned while working within a youthadult partnership model. YOUTH-ADULT A setting in which both sets of participants, youth and adults, PARTNERSHIP TRAINING receive specialized training on how to function within a youtha dult partnership model.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW From Positive Youth Development to Community Youth Development At every level of government, from local to international, the past two decades have seen increased attention being placed on the field of youth development as it relates to the potential of transforming the lives of youth (Delgado, 2002). Within this, various movements have begun to acknowledge and comprehend the merit in utilizing youth and oth er local assets in order to improve the lives of youth as well as the community as a whole. In 1999, World Sources Online reported that the United Nations has even recognized the use of youth development strategies as an effective method for achieving both youth and community potential (as cited in Delgado, 2002). This emergence of youth engagement in the realm of the local community has made a way for the field of youth development to broaden the potential for change at both the family and community level (Delgado, 2002). However, in order to better understand the true nature of this emerging field of community youth development, it is necessary to retrace the evolution of the field while gaining a clearer understanding of the definitions which framed the f ield as it evolved over the past twenty years. According to Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins (2002), Americans have, over the past half century, slowly begun to realize that childhood and adolescence are special periods of growth and development in a young persons life, requiring an increased sense of responsibility for attention and care of these youth. The 1950s and early 1960s saw the beginning of this movement, where this care was interpreted as a response to the various crises being faced Youth issues such as juvenile violence, delinquent and antisocial behaviors, academic failure, substance abuse, and teenage

PAGE 19

19 pregnancy (e.g. Agee, 1979; Clarke & Cornish, 1978; Cooper, Altman, Brown, & Czechowicz, 1983; DeLeon & Ziegenfuss, 1986; Friedman & Beschner, 1985; Gold & Mann, 1984) were on the rise, becoming more and more prevalent within all strands of society (Catalano et al., 2002). As a response, researchers, academics, practitioners, and policy makers in the field designed programs, service s, and policies in an attempt to reduce the occurrences and impacts of these issues on youth through various prevention approaches focused on support of youth before the emergence of problematic behaviors (Catalano et al., 2002). However, most of these pre ventative programs were singular in focus, designed to address single problematic behavior rather than treating the child holistically (Catalano et al., 2002). This mindset is captured in the typological spectrum of adult attitudes as described by Lofquist (1989). This spectrum describes youth as being viewed by adults as objects, recipients, or resources. Prevention strategies underwent a slow evolution over the next several decades as programs were evaluated for effectiveness and empirical findings from v arious studies and theoretical frameworks began to be applied within the programming (Catalano et al., 2002). Dryfoos (1990) and Jessor and Jessor (1977) are a few classic examples of this prevention orientation. Important predictors for problem behaviors in youth, coupled with decisionmaking theories such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the Health Belief Model (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988), continued to drive the evolutionary process within the prevention programming of the 1970s and 1980s.

PAGE 20

20 However, during the 1980s these efforts came under increased scrutiny as researchers and practitioners began to realize the confounding nature of various problems as well as predictors that emerged as common across several behavior sets (Catalano et al., 2002). A greater understanding of the relationships youth have with the environment (including predictors and interactions), coupled with the push for the integration of positive youth d evelopment in the areas of social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development, led to dramatic changes during the late 1980s and early 1990s (Catalano et al., 2002). The early 1990s brought out one substantial contributor to this new paradigm, Emmy W erner (Delgado, 2002). Out of their longitudinal study in Hawaii, Werner and her colleagues discovered high -risk children who were not only able to overcome substantial socioeconomic barriers, but to thrive within that setting. From these findings emerged an important new concept in the field of youth development resiliency. Resiliency, defined as a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000, p. 543), refers to those factors which aid youth in rebounding in the face of stressors or adversity. In other words, resiliency refers to the set of protective factors within a person that act as moderators for reactions to stressful situations or chronic adversity in an attempt to adapt more successfully than if those factors were not present (Werner, 1995). From her work, Werner (1995) categorized these factors into three groups: (1) individual attributes, such as being engaging, as well as having strong communication and problem -solving skills, talents and hobbies, and faith in personal worth; (2) the family, which can be accomplished through a strong bond with a single family member; and

PAGE 21

21 (3) the community, provided through networks of support systems that reinforce and reward th e abilities of those youth. Delgado (2002) further delineates Werners factors into two supplemental categories, resiliency factors (those which are internal to the individual) and environmental factors (external). The positive youth development movement o f the early 1990s was also enriched through the early and ongoing research of the Search Institute, which revealed a clearer understanding of and need for the identification and enhancement of assets youth possess. Based on extensive research in resiliency and youth development, the Developmental Assets framework of the Search Institute represents those factors (i.e. relationships, opportunities, and personal qualities) which youth need in order limit the impact of risk in their lives. According to Scales and Leffert (1999), the quantity of assets youth have is inversely correlated with the likelihood of engaging in high-risk behaviors. In other words, youth are more likely to avoid high -risk behaviors and, instead, thrive when more assets are present. Through extensive research, the Search Institute has identified forty assets which have been divided into two categories, each having four subsets (Scales & Leffert, 1999). Similar to Werners environmental factors, youth potentially have external assets which are provided to youth by families, individuals or communities and include 1) support, 2) empowerment, 3) boundaries and expectations, and 4) constructive use of time (Scales & Leffert, 1999). The second set of assets, in line with Werners internal resili ency factors, include 1) commitment to learning, 2) positive values, 3) social competencies, and 4) positive identity (Scales & Leffert, 1999). While this research has become foundational in youth development, it is important to note that though assets do increase the likelihood of success, they do not

PAGE 22

22 guarantee success (Delgado, 2002). However, the decades of extensive research on youth resiliency laid the foundation for the future evolution of the positive youth development movement. Finally, in an attem pt to capture the yet undefined latent constructs that made up the emerging field of positive youth development, researchers such as Little (1993), Eccles and Gootman (2002), and Lerner (2004) reviewed the available evidence from the research and practice of positive youth development. From that data they identified what have come to be known as the six Cs competence, confidence, connection, character, caring/compassion, and contribution (Lerner et al., 2005). Each of these six Cs plays a crucial role in understanding the goals and outcomes of community -based programs aimed at enhancing youth development (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 22). In the 2005 article, Lerner et al. defined the six Cs as follows: Competence: Positive views of ones actions in domain specific areas including social, academic, cognitive, and vocational. Confidence: An internal sense of overall positive self -worth and self efficacy. Connection: Positive bonds with people and institutions that are reflected in bidirectional exchanges betw een the individual and peers, family, school, and community in which both parties contribute to the relationship. Character: Respect for societal and cultural rules, possession of standards for correct behaviors, a sense of right and wrong (morality), and integrity. Caring/Compassion: A sense of sympathy and empathy for others. Connection: Enacting the behaviors of the previous five Cs in order to contribute positively to self, family, community, and, ultimately, civil society. (p. 23) It is within each of these developments that the framework for community youth development has emerged ( Villarruel, Perkins, Borden, & Keith 2003). Community Youth Development (CYD) A Definition Youth violence has repeatedly shocked the nation over the past several dec ades. From violent acts on family members to youth turning on each other and themselves,

PAGE 23

23 communities have searched in desperation for effective solutions to create environments that promote the positive and healthy development of all youth ( Villarruel et al., 2003). Although these communities have identified the need for embracing the precepts of positive youth development, many continue to demonstrate a limited understanding of the necessary factors which must be present in order to create a community envi ronment that truly promotes positive youth development in all young people ( Villarruel et al., 2003). This limited understanding displayed by many communities is often deeply rooted in past utilization of deficit or prevention models of yesteryear, which t argeted youth who were dealing with specific problematic or highrisk behaviors, rather than preparing all youth to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. The effective preparation of youth in meeting these challenges requires communities to provide th e foundations necessary for making decisions in order to promote their own positive development, which occur through youth engagement in opportunities for developing positive relationships, skills, competencies and attitudes that will assist them in makin g positive choices for their lives ( Villarruel et al., 2003, p. 3). During the 1990s, several key phrases began ringing out this challenge throughout communities. The first phrase was problem -free is not fully prepared (Benson & Pittman, 2001, p. 5, Villarruel et al., 2003). This phrase brought to light the fact that, while youth participation in deficit programming may result in problem free children, these youth remained limited due to the lack of proper preparation for becoming well rounded, pr oductive citizens. Subsequently, the phrase Fully prepared isnt fully participating began to emerge as academics and practitioners began to question why

PAGE 24

24 those same youth were thought to be ineligible for active engagement until their adulthood ( Villarru el et al., 2003; Pittman, 2000). According to Villarruel et al. (2003), youth need to be engaged as partners in their own development and in the development of their community (p. 3). It was during this same time period that the phrase Community Youth D evelopment, coined by the National Network for Youth, began greatly affecting the field of youth development (Hughes & Curnan, 2000). Powered by the belief that communities can become healthy places for youth to grow up through adults and youth working together, programs and policies began to see change. While the focus of some researchers and applied scholars rested on the identification of those elements critical for youth in making authentic contributions as members of society (i.e., Benson, 1997; Benso n, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Lerner, 1995, 2002), others were interested in the integration of positive youth development and community development as a means for these contributions (Hughes & Curnan, 2000; Villarruel et al., 2003; Pittman, 2000). Nu merous authors have attempted to capture in words the spirit of community youth development (i.e. Villarruel et al., 2003; Delgado, 2000). Villarruel et al. (2003) defined community youth development as: purposely creating environments that provide constructive, affirmative, and encouraging relationships that are sustained over time with adults and peers, while concurrently providing an array of opportunities that enable youth to build their competencies and become engaged partners in their own development as well as the d evelopment of their communities. (p. 6) The creation of such environments and opportunities has received growing attention throughout the research community. In their book, Community Programs to Promote Youth Development Eccles and Gootman (2002) substantiate this need for various opportunities as Adolescents who spend time in communities that are rich in

PAGE 25

25 developmental opportunities experience less risk and show evidence of higher rates of positive development (p. 11). Therefore, built on various and multiple interactions of youth within their local community, the relationships and competencies formed during this type of process provide youth with the tools they need to become effective, engaged members of their community. These ideas of m ultiple interactions, relationships and competencies lead us into the theoretical underpinnings of the theory of developmental intentionality. The Theory of Developmental Intentionality Defined According to Walker, Marczak, Blyth, and Borden (2005), the theory of developmental intentionality is based on three key precepts which govern the effectiveness of youth engagement within community youth-based programs. First, programs are deemed most effective when attention is given to the long-term developmental outcomes throughout both programmatic design and philosophy of involved youth workers (Walker et al., 2005). This manifests itself as program leaders and youth workers seek to create intentionally designed learning opportunities which encourage youth to b e active participants in helping to shape themselves, rather than simply being shaped by the adults in the program. These learning opportunities are deliberate and strategic, designed to maximize the desired developmental outcomes within the program, while remaining thoughtful and responsive to the needs of the youth being served. Intentionality may manifest itself through a series of goal, plans or actions to achieve identified outcomes (Walker et al., 2005, p. 402), which, in turn, can assist both youth and adults in achieving a shared sense of purpose, direction, and goals. Therefore, unlike youth programming models which seek to intentionally shape youth into some mold, the theory of developmental intentionality proposes the

PAGE 26

26 intentional shaping of the learning opportunities in an attempt to achieve the desired long -term outcomes. The intentional design described above leads to the second precept, which is based on the concept that youth are more likely to achieve the desired outcomes when actively engaged in the process as collaborators rather than simply recipients (Walker et al., 2005). Engagement, the extent to which young people are involved, interested, and enthusiastic about what they are doing (Walker, 2006, p. 76), delves far beyond mere part icipation in learning opportunities. Rather, engagement can refer to deep interest or passion for one singular activity or involvement over a longer period of time in the context of a larger learning experience. According to Walker et al. (2005), when a y oung person stays engaged for an extended period of time, the chance of optimizing the achievement of developmental outcomes increases (p. 403). While no specific amount of time or intensity of involvement has been determined to provide optimal outcomes, Walker et al. (2005) suggest that practical wisdom would suggest that participation that is intermittent or short term in nature would not provide the same level of outcome manifestation as those who are engaged in longer -term participation. Engagement, in turn, points to the final precept in which the engagement of youth in this process results from a good fit between the youth and the intentional learning opportunities found within the first precept (Walker et al., 2005). According to the theory, as inten tionality is placed into the design of a program an increase will occur in the goodness of fit between the participating youth and the program, which, in turn, leads to increased engagement by the youth (Walker et al., 2005). Furthermore, Walker et al.

PAGE 27

27 (20 05) suggest that when a program is well aligned to an individuals needs and to a groups needs, it creates a force for increased engagement (p. 404). In addition to these three precepts, the theory of developmental intentionality suggests that intentionality is guided by six principles which define the ethos of positive youth development. This ethos of positive youth development represents a fundamental commitment to how one works with youth a commitment that permeates how one things and how one oper ates (Walker et al., 2005, p.404). Therein lay the six principles that drive the ethos. First, programs which are functioning within this ethos recognize the need for programming to be built on basic youth needs (Walker, 2006). These crucial needs, origin ally outlined by Konopka (1973), include: generating a sense of safety and structure, experiencing active participation and belonging, making meaningful contributions which in turn generate an increase in self worth, developing quality relationships with others, discovering themselves through experimentation, promoting communication especially around conflicting values as they seek to create their own set of values and beliefs, feeling the pride and competence that comes with the mastery of a subject or act ivity, and a belief that life can be enjoyed and successful (Walker et al., 2005). Next, programs which provide youth with choice and flexibility within their learning opportunities are positioned to increase the engagement and responsibility of youth in t heir own learning and development as they navigate according to their personal level of participation, personal beliefs of leadership, and abilities for making a contribution (McLaughlin, 2000; Walker et al., 2005). Third, this ethos supports an integration of learning opportunities within the program with everyday life, encouraging involvement in activities which promote real work, service learning, and

PAGE 28

28 contributions to family and community (Walker et al., 2005, p. 80). The fourth principle promotes a po sitive asset based approach when interacting with youth, rather than the traditional mindset of correcting what is wrong with them (Walker et al., 2005). While each of the above four principles are important for the success of intentional youth programm ing, it is especially within the fifth and sixth principles that two crucial principles for the creation of programming designs which seek to utilize a youthadult partnership model are uncovered. The fifth principle holds that youth benefit most when lear ning opportunities are fashioned from a comprehensive, holistic approach, rather than a piecemealed, fragmented series of events or activities (Walker et al., 2005). In response to contemporary research literature which suggested that youth who participate in out of -school opportunities which met certain criteria tended to benefit developmentally (e.g. Blum & Rinehart, 2001; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Larson, 2000), Walker et al. (2005) made a call for learning opportunities to be multiple, sequential, and int egrated while promoting respectful, caring relationships, activities which are both relevant, safe, stimulating, and pedagogically appropriate, and contextual connections to the lives of the participants. The sixth, and final, principle within this ethos s uggests that both learning and development are enhanced when an active cocreation occurs between the youth and adults who are participating in the learning opportunity, thus providing shared leadership and power between the two (Walker et al., 2005). Walk er et al. (2005) suggested that, while ideas such as co-creation, shared leadership, and youth adult partnerships are often claimed to be present within the design of youth programming, these are seldom ever manifested, either consistently or well, within the confines of the learning opportunities due to significant, but practical challenges faced

PAGE 29

29 within the program. These challenges can include a lack of understanding by adults on how to share power with youth, limitations on time and resources, lack of cl arity regarding program intentions, and what seem to be limitless questions on the value of involving youth within the development and implementation process (Walker et al., 2005). Addressing these issues is therefore critical to the success of programs seeking to implement a youthadult partnership. Problematic Perceptions of Youth and Adults: A History of YouthAdult Relationships The manner in which youth are viewed by the community around them has roots deep in both historical precedents and percept ions. According to Fass (2004), most of history does not acknowledge adolescence as an independent stage of life. Instead, scholars such as Aristotle limited life to three distinct periods: childhood, youth, and old age, while the Romans applied the term c hild to almost anyone without a consideration of age (Fass, 2004). Throughout the writings and literature from the Middle Ages well into the early modern period in Europe, the amount with which childhood experiences were recounted or shared was extremely l imited (Heywood, 2001). This general absence of childhood and youth from these forms of written documentation speak to the prevailing concept of the times: youth are marginal figures in an adult world (Heywood, 2001). Medieval scholar James Schultz (1995) attributed this absence to the prevailing perception of youth as imperfect adults, deficient and subordinate and therefore of little interest to the adult writers of the times. This perception began to slowly evolve within the agrarian world of 18th centur y Europe as young people began to emerge as important, viable contributors to the family economy while remaining part of a semi dependent structure in which the contributions made were subject to the strict control of

PAGE 30

30 adults (Fass, 2004). It was also during this time that adults began to express concerns over both emotional and behavioral problems being exhibited by youth and sought to identify methods for preparing youth for future roles in both the family and community (Fass, 2004). This concept of childh ood being the preparation ground for adulthood continued well into the mid 20th century, laced heavily with the ongoing perceptions of youth as deficient members of a community in need of an education that will transform them into rational, mature, competent adults (Heywood, 2001). Current Trends in YouthAdult Relationships The manner in which adults have viewed, treated, and interacted with youth has continued to evolve throughout the 20th and 21st century, especially impacting the field of youth develo pment, where adults work closely with youth to create an environment in which optimal development may occur. In addition to the concept of optimal youth development, an increasing vision for recognizing and valuing youth participation in leadership roles h as begun to emerge. In his work, Roger Hart (1997) proposed a model to better explain the role that youth may choose to take in leadership opportunities, based on their skills and abilities. According to Harts (1997) ladder, there are eight degrees of par ticipation that a youth may be engaged. The bottom three rungs provide participation opportunities that, in actuality, are based on the will of the adults involved; therefore, the bottom three rungs (manipulation, decoration, and tokenism) actually portr ay situations in which there is nonparticipation by youth. Moving up Harts ladder, the role of youth continues to become more autonomous, with participation ranging from being assigned, yet informed, about their particular roles for service by adults to shared decisionmaking with adults in settings that were initiated by adults. The final two rungs of Harts (1997) ladder has programming and project focuses

PAGE 31

31 initiated by youth, with the top level incorporating shared decision -making between youth and adul ts, rather than the simple supportive involvement of the previous rung. Complementary to Harts work, Mitras (2002) pyramid model attempts to create a hierarchical order for the various forms of student (youth) voice. Based in the context of the tradition al school setting rather than community based youth programming, Mitras concept of student voice revolves around the potential of youth to share their voice on a wide range of areas affecting the school. This voice can be found in the youths simple opi nions of possible problems and solutions to more complex and active collaborations with adults who are in the process of trying to solve the problems being faced within the schools. Mitras (2002) pyramid consists of three levels: information, collaboration, and autonomy. The information level, found at the bottom of the hierarchy, limits youth to simply providing information that adults then interpret for meaning without further input from youth. At the collaboration level, however, youth are allowed to increase their role through active engagement in the process as they join in collaborative efforts with adults to not only define the problems, but to also interpret the data and then take action in order to promote change. Finally, at the top of the pyramid, youth demonstrate a level of autonomy as they are allowed to work independent of adult direction as they seek to research and solve problems. As Jones (2004) points out, both Harts ladder and Mitras pyramid attempt to explain the potential utilizatio n of youth skills and increases in autonomy in leadership roles. However, each model also displays limitations when used to examine the role of youth in certain leadership roles. Harts model focuses on the roles of youth in the participation process, with out placing an emphasis on the importance of adult

PAGE 32

32 interactions within the process itself. While Mitras model does emphasize the role of youth adult collaborations, the contextual setting of schools and classrooms can limit the validity of these classific ations when examining community -based programs, which tend to be much more varied. Instead, Jones and Perkins (2006) developed a model to specifically target youthadult relationships within community efforts. Focused on individual choices, the Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships categorizes the levels of youth and adult involvement into five key programming types including those with: adult -centered leadership, adult -led collaborations, youthadult partnerships, youthled collaborations, and youth-c entered leadership (Jones & Perkins, 2006). Either end of this continuum contains programming models that exclude active input from the nondominant participants. For example, programs that invoke an adult -centered leadership model would be completely conc eived and driven by adults, without any input from youth as to the nature or direction of programming decisions (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). A common example of this model can be found within the current system of education, as teachers, administrators, and p oliticians decide what youth should be learning throughout their eight hours each day. At the other extreme is the youth-centered leadership model. This model is limited in potential outlets for implementation within structured environments since youth oft en must include adults in the management of facilities and procurement of necessary supplies for such endeavors (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). When both adults and youth are included, at least on some level, collaborations occur. Collaborations allow the non -do minant group to receive some voice on the direction and implementation of programming decisions, though final say remains with the dominant

PAGE 33

33 group (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). Finally, the model located at the center of the continuum provides both groups of participants the opportunity to partner together in a balanced harmony of power and voice in order to reach a desired set of goals (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). This model is referred to as the youthadult partnership. YouthAdult Partnerships: A Definition Th e world is currently awash with ideas of collaboration and partnerships. From inter organizational relationships which intend to achieve the shared goals of participants ( Jae-Nam, & Young-Gul 1999) to a relationship defined through the existence of differ ences of participating partners which generates potentially viable synergy (Mackintosh, 1992), definitions for the concept of a partnership are as diverse as the groups attempting to implement them. In the realm of positive youth development, one definitio n for partnerships involves engagement in a process designed to allow every participant (both youth and adult) the opportunity to make both suggestions and decisions and in which the contribution of each party is recognized and valued (Norman, 2001). This concept of youthadult partnerships is not new ; however it has only been recently that professionals in the field of positive youth development have sought to understand the role that this programmatic model might play in furthering the positive develop ment of todays youth (Jones & Perkins, 2006). At its simplest, a youth adult partnership provides an opportunity for adults to work in concert with young people in an attempt to either address current issues, policies, or programmatic needs impacting youth. However, as is evident throughout recent youth development literature, understandings and implementation of youthadult partnerships vary. Some literature presented the youthadult partnership as a setting in which groups of youth work with a couple adults who have assumed the role of facilitator, charged

PAGE 34

34 with the role of creating a safe environment for authentic youth participation (Denner, Meyer, & Bean, 2005). Others, such as Panitz (1996) suggested that youthadult partnerships are evidence of a co llaborative process which highlights individual members abilities and contributions in the midst of shared authority, responsibility and decision making (as cited in Jones, 2004). Furthering this definition, Camino (2000) identified specific concepts necessary for generating genuine youth adult partnerships including mutuality and equality between youth and adults, continual opportunities for the development of crucial skills and competencies, and genuine, active participation by the youth. Through legitim ate opportunities in which a safe environment has been created in which various skills and competencies are built and decisionmaking power in program activities and community initiatives is guaranteed, youth are able to actively participate and become civ ically engaged within their community. The ultimate goal of these partnerships is for youth to become authentic contributors to their community, involved in a wide range of activities including: conducting needs assessments for the local community; raisin g funds through grant writing and other means for various community outreach endeavors; designing and implementing new programming complete with the training of staff, delivery of services, and evaluation of program effectiveness; and promoting ideas and projects for addressing issues such as health and nutrition, homelessness, safety, and the environment (National 4-H Council, 2007a). In fact, s everal organizations currently thrive in their commitment to bringing youth to the decision -making table (e.g., I nnovation Center's At The Table Initiative, Philadelphia Student Union, Youth On Board, YouthBuild USA) (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). This engagement of youth as

PAGE 35

35 important contributors within their community leads to the establishment of stronger communities ( Camino, 2000). Jones and Perkins (2005a) reiterated the necessary foundations of the youthadult partnership within their operational definition: YouthAdult Partnerships: A fostered relationship between youth and adults where both parties have equal pot ential in making decisions, utilizing skills, mutual learning, and promoting change through civic engagement, program planning and/or community development initiatives (Jones & Perkins, 2005a, p.1161) Therefore, genuine youth adult partnerships require equal potential in making decisions, building of crucial skill sets, and learning opportunities, metered with an appreciation and value for the individual strengths and contributions that can be made by each participant. Within this operational definition, J ones and Perkins (2005a) also delineated other criteria for participation in youth adult partnerships. According to this definition, the creation of an effective partnership requires the existence of specific skill sets (e.g., decision making, commitment, responsibility, and a strong work ethic). Therefore, based on the abilities of youth to demonstrate and perform these skills, youth within a youthadult partnership would be between the ages of 12 and 18, while adults would be classified as individuals ove r the age of 19 (Jones & Perkins, 2005a). YouthAdult Partnerships within Florida 4 H The Florida 4H program efforts to focus on youthadult partnerships began in January 2002 with State Conversations. Youth and adults from around the state, representin g all congressional districts, ethnic groups and diverse Florida communities, came together to discuss issues of importance for local communities throughout the state. While it was evident within these discussions that 4-H demonstrated a high capacity for creating opportunities for youth and adult conversations regarding various

PAGE 36

36 community issues, the need to develop and increase youthadult partnerships for engaging in active roles for dealing with these issues was identified as a crucial next step. In order to address this need, state 4-H personnel applied in fall 2002 for a Rural Development Grant from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to participate in Round 1 Funding for Bridging the Gap: Engaging Youth, Serving Communities. This program would be the impetus for the development of youthadult partnership programming across the state. Bridging the Gap identified three main goals including: undergoing an intensive assessment of the organizational systems currently in place throughout the state, developing and providing YAP trainings for youth and adults who desired to participate in civic governance, and engaging youth in civic governance within the state organization itself. Before that point in time, the majority of state 4-H leadership and governance systems in place failed to represent the equal partnership between youth and adult members as defined within a youthadult partnership. Instead, the governance tended to be either youth-centered or adult centered leadership. For example, th e Florida 4-H Executive Board, at that time, would have been classified by Jones and Perkins (2005a) Continuum of YouthAdult Relationships as a Youth-Centered Leadership that excluded active input from the nondominant participants. During the first phas e of this programming, April 2004, faculty and county Extension agents were provided training in the youth adult partnership model using a core set of curricula from the Innovation Center for Community and Youth Development. This training has since been repeated over the course of the last five years to provide

PAGE 37

37 continued support for incoming county faculty who may be unfamiliar with the YAP model and facilitation skills necessary for proper implementation within their community. To ensure consistent trainin g throughout the state, the resources from Innovation Center have been utilized within each of the state led trainings that have occurred over the past five years, both for youth and adults. The second phase of this programming focused on the use of youthadult partnerships as a vehicle for increasing the base of youth and volunteer involvement in civic opportunities within communities throughout the state. Prior to that time, the voice of youth for Florida 4 -H rested within the state council system, which provides youth who participate in their local county council the opportunity to then go on to represent their county within their district council, and possibly the option to move on to the state council or Executive Board via peer elected positions. This system greatly limits the number of 4-H youth who can choose to participate in the civic aspects of Florida 4 -H. However, by utilizing the youthadult partnership model in various program settings, youth and volunteers who wished to participate in civic op portunities outside of their county council would be afforded that opportunity. To target these individuals, youth and volunteers from all counties were invited to participate in the YAP trainings being provided. Over the past five years, several training programs have been implemented within Florida 4 -H designed around the youth adult partnership (YAP) model. These programs include Health Rocks! (HR), Operation: Military Kids (OMK), Learning and Leading (LL), Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health ( YEAH ), and Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC). With the introduction of each of these programs, youth

PAGE 38

38 and adults from the targeted counties were invited to participate in a training lasting from two to four days. The first of these trainings, which t ook place in January 2004, revolved around the Health Rocks! curriculum. Health Rocks! is a nationally reviewed and recommended curriculum designed to promote healthy living among youth ages 8 to 14 years old. The goal of this program is to bring yout h, families, and communities across the United States together to reduce tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use by youth (National 4-H, 2009, p. 3). Youth who are ages 13 and over are able to participate in Health Rocks! as part of a teaching team, which are designed to unite teens and adult as partners in the pursuit of educating their community on the dangers of engaging in risky health behaviors. These teens who participate in the training and subsequent facilitation opportunities are able to develop and implement community strategies that promote healthy living choices (National 4-H, 2009, p.3) while also building positive, enduring relationships, with youth involved as full partners (National 4-H, 2009, p.3). Eleven counties participated in the 200 4 training including: Alachua, Bay, Charlotte, Clay, Gilchrist, Jefferson, Levy, Liberty, Nassau, Santa Rosa, and Taylor. This resulted in producing one teaching team per county, with the exception of Santa Rosa, which produced seven, for a total of sevent een teams. In addition to implementing the program in their communities, these teaching teams were provided an opportunity to teach two 1 hour workshops during the State 4 -H Youth Congress in July 2004. One workshop focused on the overview of the Health Rocks! program they were engaged in promoting in their communities while the other workshop provided training about the concept of building a youthadult

PAGE 39

39 partnership. These sessions intentionally provided the trained teams an opportunity to promote the program to others in hopes of expanding the program outreach while they enhanced their youth adult partnership practices. It was also an intentional method used to demonstrate the youthadult teaching team concept to a greater number of youth and adults sim ultaneously within the state. There were approximately 550 teens and adults in attendance and a total of the 16 teams conducting the workshops. The second training, in August 2004, provided youth with an opportunity to participate in the U.S. Armys Operat ion: Military Kids (OMK) program. According to the OMK Web site, Operation: Military Kids is a collaborative effort between 4-H and the U. S. Army to support the children and youth impacted by deployment ( Huebner, Mancini, Bowen, & Orthner, 2009). Youth, ages 13 and over, were able to partner with adults in their county to create teaching teams to raise awareness within their community about the issues faced by military families affected by deployment. Six counties participated in the 2004 training Alach ua, Duval, Escambia, Jackson, Santa Rosa, and Walton resulting in the production of one teaching team per county, with the exception of Escambia and Santa Rosa, which produced six and four teams respectively, for a total of fourteen teams. In May of the following year, a third training was provided for youth, this time using the national Learning and Leading in Civic Engagement curriculum, supported by trainers from the Learning Innovation Center. While the previous two trainings promoted content specific to target audiences, the goal of this training was to provide youth and adults with a program model that would strengthen overall civic engagement at the community, county and state level, while promoting positive partnerships between the

PAGE 40

40 participants. Yo uth from eight counties, ages 13 and over, partnered together with adults in their community to form train-the -trainer teams. Of the eight counties that participated in the 2005 training Bradford, Gilchrist, Holmes, Miami Dade, Palm Beach, Sarasota, Sant a Rosa, and Seminole most resulted in the production of one teaching team per county, with the exception of Santa Rosa, which produced two teams, for a total of nine teams. Following the YAP training experiences from the fall 2004 to spring 2005, each of the trained teams were again invited to be part of the educational program during the State 4 -H Youth Congress in late July 2005. In addition to implementing the program in their communities, each of the teaching teams provided at least two 1 hour works hops. The first workshop focused on the overview of either the OMK or Learning and Leading program. The other workshop provided training about the concept of a youth adult partnership. Again, this allowed the teams to demonstrate the youthadult teaching t eam concept to a greater number of youth and adults simultaneously within the state. Also during the State Youth Congress 2005, another opportunity for youthadult partnership teams occurred. Targeted counties with previous youthadult partnership experiences were provided the opportunity to bring teams of two youth and two adults to a forum concerning childhood obesity hosted in partnership with the Florida Department of Health (DOH). Teams were provided training regarding the issue and feedback solicited by the Secretary of DOH. As a result of this initiative, a new state 4 -H program initiative on Healthy Lifestyles emerged across the state. In addition to these Congress opportunities, various YAP teams were invited to provide trainings at an Executive Board meeting during the respective year to educate

PAGE 41

41 Executive Board members on the content focus for community outreach promoted through the YAP program, as well as the skills necessary for participating in a true youth adult partnership. Many of these sessi ons were promoting the Healthy Lifestyles program initiative focused on childhood obesity. In addition to these influence of trainings, the system of the state Executive Board was beginning to shift due to the presence of some youth who participated in the initial YAP training in 2004 and were now old enough to hold membership on the board. Since then, members of the Florida 4 -H Executive Board have since transitioned from a youth-centered leadership with occasional youth led collaborations, to a youth-led collaboration which opportunities to engage in youth adult partnerships. During early summer 2006, a second Learning and Leading training was offered along with a fourth opportunity for teams to facilitate the introduction of the new initiative on childhood obesity in collaboration with DOH Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health ( YEAH! ). YEAH! focused attention on healthy lifestyle issues; however, the spotlight of this program centered on increasing physical activity, reducing screen time, and making healthier food choices. Youth from nine counties, ages 13 and over, partnered together with adults in their community to form train-the -trainer teams. Nine counties were represented at the YEAH! Summit by YAP teams Alachua, Flagler, Liberty, Manatee, Miami -Dade, Pinellas, Santa Rosa, Seminole and St. Johns. Again, in July 2006 the same model of programming as previously used at the State Youth Congress was implemented with sixteen previously trained YAP teams conducting training sessions on healthy lif estyles education. Again this was designed intentionally

PAGE 42

42 to continue to expose new youth and volunteers to the youthadult partnership model as a way to become engaged in and impact community issues. The final indepth program model began in 2005 and has continued to be implemented in Florida ever since. Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC), supported by USDA funding, was designed to assist youth in gaining the life skills needed to become effective leaders within while working in positive partnershi ps with adults within their community. Youth, ages 13 and over, represent five counties which have participated in EYSC over the past five years. Of the five counties who participated in the EYSC trainings Bay, Leon, Santa Rosa, Taylor, and Walton each generated multiple teams within each county. Currently, the state of Florida continues to support four of the five YAP programs EYSC, YEAH!, OMK, and Health Rocks! Trainings are provided on a regular basis to youth and adults who wish to participat e in these programs; however, sometimes the current trainings may not fully capture the essence of a true youthadult partnership due to either budget or time constraints. The only program of the remaining four known to regularly provide sufficient time and funding to support YAP trainings for youth and adults within the program is EYSC

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Purpose Over the past five years, a youthadult partnership (YAP) model has been implemented in several programs within the Florida 4-H Youth Development Program. This study was conducted in order to evaluate the quality of these youthadult partnerships within the Florida 4 H Youth Development Program. Specifically, this research was conducted in order to examine the relationship of intentionality, t hrough participation in multiple YAP training sessions, on the quality of program implementation, level of engagement during the program, and intentions to remain civically engaged within the community following completion of the program. The following cha pter provides the research design, as well as a description of the study participants and data collection procedures. Research Design This study utilized a descriptive, or observational, cross -sectional research design. Descriptive research is used when t he researcher is attempting to systematically describe the facts and characteristics of a given population or are of interest, factually and accurately (Isaac & Michael, 1971, p. 18). Descriptive research includes survey studies which are often designed with a purpose: a) to collect detailed factual information that describes existing phenomena, b) to identify problems or justify current conditions and practices, c) to make comparisons and evaluations, and d) to determine what others are doing with simil ar problems or situations and benefit from their experience in ma king future plans and decisions. (Isaac & Michael, 1971, p. 18) This type of design allows researchers to probe existing differences between comparison groups as the relationships between num erous variables are investigated.

PAGE 44

44 In descriptive or observational studies the researcher is not interested in establishing direct causality, but rather investigating the interrelationships between variables within each group and determining the strength wi th which each variable explains the variance displayed for each of the groups in regards to the outcome variable (de Vaus, 2001). Therefore, a researcher attempting to determine if two or more variables are related, often finds it useful to employ a cross -sectional design and often the research question of the study revolves around the establishment of these relationships (Spector, 1981). A cross-sectional design collects data at one point in time, then analyzes the data by examining evident variation betwe en the outcome variable and pertinent group differences (de Vaus, 2001). Therefore, in an attempt to create an accurate portrayal of youth adult partnerships within Florida 4 -H Youth Development Programs, a survey study has been utilized. Unit of Analysis One key attribute of youthadult partnerships is the formation of partnerships. However, the items posed within this study delve into personal perceptions, interactions, beliefs, and intentions. It was also believed that too few complete teams could be lo cated for inclusion in the study. Therefore, in order to generate the strongest answers to the posed research questions, individuals, rather than YAP teams, will serve as the unit of analysis for this study. Population and Sample In an attempt to identify the effectiveness of youth adult partnerships within the Florida 4 -H Youth Development Program, two groups were identified for comparison. The first group included youth who had participated in one of the five youthadult partnership trainings provided thr ough Florida 4 -H over the course of the last five years.

PAGE 45

45 These youth were also provided opportunities to practice the techniques taught during the training sessions through various facilitations within the same five year time period. Rosters from the train ing programs for Health Rocks! (HR), Operation: Military Kids (OMK), Learning and Leading (LL), Youth Empowered Ambassadors for Health (YEAH!), and Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC) were used to create the population of participants. Youth who met the above mentioned criteria were identified and contact information was collected for them. From the rosters, 145 youth were identified for inclusion in the sample, with 60 having personal e-mail accounts. A census sample was then taken of these 60 y outh. A second group, consisting of youth who participated in the Florida 4H Executive Board, was identified for comparative purposes. These youth were selected due to similar characteristics including focused trainings on and opportunities to practice l eadership and communication skills, interest in participating in community service projects, opportunities to work closely with adults within projects, and complementary age ranges and county representation. The majority of youth represented within this gr oup are currently engaged in the 20092010 Florida 4-H Executive Board; however, several former Executive Board members were also included in the survey process to help capture approximate counterparts for those youth in the first group who were members of the first YAP program, and have since graduated. A census sample of 64 youth present during the second 2009-2010 Executive Board meeting was conducted. Instrument Design Questionnaires were utilized to collect quantitative data in an attempt to identify t he success of youthadult partnership programming model within Florida 4H. The

PAGE 46

46 researcher designed the questionnaire using concepts from relevant literature as well as an adapted youthadult partnership scale from Jones (2004). Permissions were sought from Jones (2004) to incorporate his Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale as part of this instrument in order to assist in capturing perceived levels of involvement and quality of interactions present within youth adult partnership settings. Using the three sub-scales from Jones (2004) Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale, respondents were asked to evaluate their most previous YAP community project in the areas of youth involvement, adult involvement, and interactions between the two. Together, these scales created the matrix for youthadult relationships as defined by Jones and Perkins (2005b). This data provides insight into whether the opportunities presented to these youth truly constituted a youthadult partnership, or if it would better be defined as some other type of youthadult relationship. Youth were asked to compare two contrasting statements related to their perceptions of various situations from their time in the youthadult partnership. Th en, using a scale from 1 to 10 that was placed between the two statements, they were to place their response closest to the statement that best described what they believed to be true about their youthadult partnership. The stronger they felt about the re sponse, the closer to the statement they were instructed to rate the item. According to the testing performed by Jones on this scale, the Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficients for each of the three sub-scales were as follows: Youth Involvement (.83), A dult Involvement (.84), and Youth-Adult Interaction (.87). An overall Cronbachs alpha of .94 was also reported for the instrument as a whole. R esults from this survey found corresponding Cronbach s alpha to be consistent with Jones results: Youth Involvement (.8 9 ), Adult

PAGE 47

47 Involvement (. 90), and Youth-Adult Interaction (. 94 ), overall Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale ( 96 ). There were four distinct sections within the survey. The first section examined perceived levels of involvement within youthadult partnership settings. Data for participation within YAP trainings was collected using rosters from each of the five YAP program trainings. Youth were then asked to indicate the number of opportunities they had to facilitate YAP programs within a local c ommunity setting for each of the five program areas Health Rocks! OMK, YEAH!, Learning and Leading, and EYSC using the s ix categories available for response: 1) did not facilitate, 2) 1-3 opportunities, 3) 4 -6 opportunities, 4) 79 opportunities, 5) 1012 opportunities, and 6) 13 or more opportunities. Youth were also asked to identify any other opportunities they had for facilitation which they believed also constituted a youthadult partnership. Youth were then asked to define their level of involvement through a series of items as they considered their participation in facilitating YAP programs within their community, as well as being part of a teaching team, on planning committees, or on boards or advisory committee s. The first two question s in this series asked youth to identify how many committees or decision making boards with youth only members (youth ) served on and how many committees or decisionmaking boards with youth and adult members (youth) served on u sing the following responses categories: 1) none 2) 1 -5 opportunities 3) 6 -10 opportunities 4) 11 -15 opportunities or 5) 16 or more opportunities The third question asked youth to identify how many public committees or decisionmaking boards (i.e. li brary, school/PTA, fire/rescue, EOC, church/faithbased, hospital/medical, etc.) served on using the following responses categories:

PAGE 48

48 1) none, 2) 13 opportunities 3) 4-6 opportunities 4) 7 9 opportunities 5) 1012 opportunities or 6) 13 or more oppor tunities Questions within this section also requested that respondents convey their personal perceptions about the level of youth and adult involvement that took place within those various opportunities. Major c ontri butors to this section were two of the three sub-scales from Jones (2004) Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale Youth Involvement and Adult Involvement The items on the Youth Involvement sub -scale included: a) r esponsibilities for specific tasks or assignments b) r eliance on themselves to make key decisions c) a ccess to information needed to make decisions d) o pportunity to discuss concerns with the group e) f requency of sharing ideas that mattered to them f) e quality of vote in the decision mak ing process g) c ommitment to their duties within the project h) excitement about their involvement and i) c oncern with community change. The items on the Adult Involvement sub -scale included: a) d ividing responsibilities for specific tasks or assignment s, b) r eliance on youth to make key decisions, c) p roviding youth with access to information needed for make decisions, d) c ommunicating concerns with the group, e) e ncouragement of youth to share ideas that mattered to them, f) p rovision of equal vote for youth in the decisionmaking process, g) c ommitment to their duties within the project, h) e xcitement about their involvement, and i) c oncern with community change. The second section examined quality of interactions between youth and adults within youthadult partnership settings. These questions asked youth to describe the quality of interactions they had personally had, or witnessed between others, in their YAP pro grams as well as while on a teaching team, on planning committees, or on boards or advisory committees. The first two questions in this series asked youth to

PAGE 49

49 identify which of the following statements about participating on a 4H Youth -Adult Partnership t eaching team best describes (themselves) and which of the following statements about participating on a 4-H Youth-Adult Partnership planning committees or advisory boards best describes (themselves) using the following responses categories: 1) Ive neve r participated, 2) Ive never participated, but would like the opportunity to, 3) I currently serve, but do no t feel it is a partnership between youth and adults or 4) I currently serve within an equal partnership between youth and adults A third question asked youth to assess the quality of their role as a committee or board member by completing the following statement: Based on my experiences as a committee/board member, I have: using the following responses categories: 1) always been accepted as a contributing member 2) only been a token member or 3) experienced both being a contributing member and a token member. The major contributor to this section was the sub-scale from Jones (2004) Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale Youth-Adult Interac tions The items on the YouthAdult Interaction sub-scale included: a) g etting along well, b) p erceived youth interactions with adults, c) p erceived adult interactions with youth, d) f requency of communication between the groups, e) a greement between the groups, f) p rovision of direction and mentoring, g) l evel of partnership when working on a project, h) l evel of mutual learning, and i) q uality of communication between groups The third section of the questionnaire examined the intention of youth to pursu e continued community engagement following their participation on a youthadult partnership team. These items included 11 items within a post then assessment of changes following YAP participation as well as three stand alone items. Within the post -

PAGE 50

50 then as sessment, youth were asked to indicate how the YAP program experience had changed their 1) engagement in opportunities, 2) confidence levels, and 3) commitment to being engaged in their community. Ite ms for each of these categories are provided in Table 3 1. Table 3 1 Categorized items within community post then question Engagement Confidence Commitment I was responsible for teaching others I was confident in helping others I wanted to be more involved in my community I acted as a mentor to youth I was a confident board/ committee member I was committed to my community I planned learning activities I was confident in myself overall I worked to make my community a better place I believed I had an important impact on my community I knew how to identify issues within my community The before and after participation in YAP experience level for these items were measured using the responses 1 ) n ever 2 ) r arely 3 ) a few times or 4 ) m any times. T hree additional questions were also used to identify other relevant personal perceptions on community engagement Youth were asked to identify how much of an impact would (they) say the Youth-Adult Partnership programs had on (their) community using the responses: 1) none, 2) a little, 3) some, or 4) a lot. They were then asked about the importance of personal community involvement using the question how important is it to you to have an impact on making your com munity a better place using the responses: 1) very important, 2) somewhat important, 3) not really that important, or 4) not at all. Finally, youth were asked to indicate their personal intentions for continued engagement within their community as they answered the question do you have any plans to continue any form of community service or outreach using the responses: 1) definitely, 2) probably, 3) maybe, 4) I doubt it, or 5) not at this time.

PAGE 51

51 The fourth, and final, section of the questionnaire captures information about the Healthy Lifestyles programming content that was utilized throughout several of the youth adult partnership program; however, this section was not included as a pertinent topic for this current research. A section for demographics was also included to provide information necessary for proper analysis. Demographic information captured within this survey included name, city/ town, county, gender, ethnicity, race, age, years of 4-H participation, and locale. Following completion of the initial questionnaire draft, a panel of experts from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida reviewed the ques tionnaire for content contextual and face validity. Each provided feedback on general questionnaire design, word choices, scalar choices, and question order. Once suggested changes had been made, cognitive interviewing was used with ten youth with charac teristics similar to the target population to determine whether a clear understanding of directions and a true sense of what questions were asking was provided. Final adjustments were made prior to distribution of the survey. The use of these methods and t he replication of Jones (2004) Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale provided increased reliability and validity to this research instrument. Data Collection Youth who had participated in YAP trainings and facilitations, which had personal e -mail addre sses on record, were sent an email message which provided a cover letter inviting them to participate and gaining consent as well as the questionnaire in fillable PDF form. A similar e mail was sent to 4 -H agents from the counties represented within the s tudy population to ask for assistance in locating other youth participants from the roster and to request their help in encouraging youth to complete the survey. A reminder

PAGE 52

52 request to both youth and agents was sent one week later to encourage them to parti cipate if they intended to. A final request was sent asking for any completed surveys to be returned within the final five days of collection. As youth returned the survey, they were sent a note of thanks for contributing to the support of future 4H progr amming in the state. From the group of 60 trained youth surveyed, 23 (38.3%) responded. Current members of the Florida 4-H Executive Board were provided the consent letter and survey in written form during the second yearly Executive Board meeting. Former Executive Board members were also on-site and were asked to complete the survey if they desired to participate. A verbal explanation about the importance of completing the survey was given, but youth were also provided the option of not completing the form if they did not wish to. Within this group of 64 youth, 60 completed the survey for a response rate of 93.8%. The significant discrepancy in response rate is consistent with the differences in reported response rates from these two different modes of data collection (Sheehan & McMillan, 1999). This data collection process was completed under the approval of the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (#2009-U 1255). Data Analysis Data analyses were conducted using PASW (formerly SPSS) v.18. As previously mentioned, two groups were initially identified for comparison within this study youth with prior youthadult partnership training and facilitation opportunities, and members of the Florida 4 -H Executive Board who were perceived to have similar c haracteristics to members of the first group; however, three groups emerged. Youth with prior YAP training and facilitation opportunities (Group 1) remained constant with 23 respondents.

PAGE 53

53 However, members of the Executive Board split into two groups. Forty respondents indicated that, while they had not participated in one of the five statewide YAP training programs within this study, they had received opportunities to facilitate one or more of these YAP programs within their communities (Group 2). The remain ing 20 respondents indicated that they had not received YAP training or the opportunity to facilitate YAP programming in their community (Group 3). These three groups will be used for comparative purposes to identify differences between those who received intentionally designed trainings to educate youth and adults on functioning within a youthadult partnership and those who either perceived they are a part of a partnership, or agree that they have no such experience. While some of the data collected repr esented curves that were highly skewed, the researcher opted to still utilize parametric testing methods, rather than the nonparametric counterparts. This decision was made due to the robustness of results when run for both parametric and nonparametric t esting, as well as the ease and availability of parametric post hoc testing for identifying between group differences. Those items for which the violation of normality was extreme were transformed prior to analysis. Demographic data were analyzed using me ans and frequencies to describe the sampled groups Age was selected as the only demographic where this further analysis was conducted since it was known that members of Groups 1 and 3 included former 4 -H participants, while Group 2 only generated responses from youth currently engaged in the Florida 4 -H Executive Board. Therefore, a oneway ANOVA was used to investigate if any significant differenc es occurred between the groups. Due to the significant results from the ANOVA, it was determined that ANCOVAs should be used in

PAGE 54

54 order to address possible covariate effects of age on the variables being examined. In instances where significant differences w ere identified, additional ANCOVAs were performed on each of the group pairs (Group 1*Group 2, Group 2*Group 3, and Group 1*Group 3), and labeling age as a covariate. The series of questions which sought to identify how levels of involvement differed between youth with various levels of YAP experiences were analyzed using frequencies, means and standard deviations to define level of involvement. Within some of these findings specifically those dealing with frequency of facilitation opportunities or service on committees and boards within the community oneway AN C OVAs and independent t tests were used to determine if significant differences existed between groups identifying age as a covariate within the ANCOVA analyses The final piece of this variable included analysis of the data captured from the Youth Involvement and Adult Involvement sub -scales of Jones (2004) Involvement and Interaction Ratings Scale Reliability analyses, using Cronbachs alpha, were run on the two scales to determine whether the items selected for inclusion held true to the findings from Jones (2004) research. Following confirmation of these results, the ShapiroWilk test was performed to determine the normality of the curve for each of the sub -scales due to its higher power in de tecting normality. Again, AN C OVAs were utilized to determine significant differences between groups identifying age as a covariate for the analyses. The next series of qu estions which sought to identify how youth with various levels of YAP experience perceived the quality of interactions between youth and adults were analyzed using crosstab analyses. Unfortunately, due to the limited number of responses within a number of the cells, a Chi -square statistic was unable to be

PAGE 55

55 generated to determine if significant differences existed between Groups 1, 2 and 3. In addition to these questions, analysis of the data captured from the YouthAdult Interaction sub -scale of Jones (2004 ) Involvement and Interaction Ratings Scale. R eliability analyses, using Cronbachs alpha, was again used to determine whether the items selected for inclusion held true to the findings from Jones (2004) research. Following confirmation of the se results, the ShapiroWilk test was performed to determine the normality of the curve. The choice was again made to use the ShapiroWilk results due to its higher power in detecting normality. AN C OVAs were then utilized to determine significant differenc es between groups identifying age as a covariate within the analyses. The final series of questions sought to determine whether youth with various levels of YAP experience woul d display different levels of potential for continued community engagement. The majority of these questions came in the form of a series of post -then items, used to assess differences before and after participation in a YAP program. The individual items we re divided into three categories engagement, confidence, and commitment and tested for reliability using Cronbachs alpha. Strong reliability displayed by these groupings allowed for a mixed betweenwithin subjects ANOVA to be conducted for each of the three categories (engagement, confidence, and commitment) to assess the differences in respondent scores (Group 1, Group 2, and Group3) across the two time periods (before and after) with age being identified as a covariate within the calculations The f inal three questions were analyzed using oneway AN C OVAs which identif ied age as a covariate within the analyses to again identify significant differences between groups.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This research was co nducted in order to examine the relationship of intentionality, through participation in various levels of YAP experiences, on the quality of program implementation, level of engagement during the program, interactions between youth and adults within the program, and intentions to remain civically engaged within the community following completion of the program. A total of 83 surveys were completed from youth who either participated in selected Florida 4-H youth adult partnership programs, a Florida 4-H Exe cutive Board, or a combination of the two over the last five years (2004 2009). The following chapter presents the analyses from the collected data. Demographics of Youth Participants Thirty -six of the 67 Florida counties had participants represented withi n the data collection. Many counties were represented with one or two participants, with the highest representation from the 83 respondents coming from Santa Rosa County (15.7%). When sorted by the three groups, a divergent pattern appears within county pa rticipation. Fourteen counties were represented by youth who could be classified as belonging to Group 3 (having participated in no YAP trainings or YAP opportunities). This group accounts for 20 of the 83 youth surveyed. Counties within this group supplied one to two participants. Youth who were classified as Group 1 having participated in both multiple YAP trainings and facilitation opportunities came from nine counties. Within this group of 23 respondents, counties which were represented by more than two participants include Santa Rosa County (52.2%, n =12) and Walton county (13.0%, n =3). Finally, youth who met the criteria for Group 2 youth who believe they have participated in YAP facilitation, but have not participated in one of the five

PAGE 57

57 YAP train ings represented 27 counties. Of these 27 counties, 11 had previous representation within Groups 1 or 2, while the remaining 16 only had representation within Group 3. Youth surveyed ranged in age from 13 to 26 years, with a mean of 16.9 years. The majo rity of youth ages were between 15 and 17 (70.0%, n =83). Youth from Group 1 (n=23) ranged in age from 13 to 26 years, with a mean of 17.9 years. Group 2 ( n =40) ranged in age from 14 to 19 years, with a mean of 16.5 years. Finally, Group 3 ( n =20) ranged in age from 14 to 25 years, with a mean of 16.5 years. A oneway ANOVA was run to test for significant differences in age between Groups 1, 2, and 3. Significant difference for between -group means were found at the p F (2, 80) = 4.07, p = .021. The effect siz e for this question, calculated using eta squared, was .09, which indicates a moderate effect. Scheffe post hoc tests revealed significant differences between Group 1 ( M= 17.91, SD= 2.83) and Group 2 ( M= 16.52, SD= 1.11). Therefore, the age of youth in Group 2 was limited to a smaller range. This result was to be expected since members of Groups 1 and 3 included former 4-H participants, while Group 2 only generated responses from youth currently engaged in the Florida 4-H Executive Board. Youth were asked to in dicate the number of years of general participation within 4 -H, which ranged from 1 year to 15 years, with a mean of 8.8 years ( SD =3.38). Youth who were categorized with Moderate 4-H Participation (610 years) represented 47.6% (n =39), while youth with Hi gher Participation (11 or more years) and Lower Participation (1 -5 years) represented 34.2% ( n =28) and 18.4% ( n =15) respectively. Further, youth who belong to Group 1 ( n =23) those with both YAP training and facilitation had a

PAGE 58

58 mean participation of 9.4 years, while those in Group 2 ( n =39) and Group 3 ( n =20) had general participation means of 9.4 years and 7.0 years respectively. Of the 83 respondents, 60.2% were female and 39.8% were male. The majority of the respondents were White/Caucasian (86.7%, n =7 2). Youth who characterized their race as both White/Caucasian and American Indian/Alaskan Native made up the next largest category ( n =3). Other represented races include Black/African American ( n =2), youth who categorized their race as Other ( n =2), Americ an Indian/Alaskan Native ( n =1), Asian ( n =1), White/Caucasian and Asian ( n =1), and Black/African American and American Indian/Alaskan Native ( n =1). Of the 63 respondents who responded to ethnicity, only 4.9% ( n =3) categorized themselves as Hispanic. All wer e a part of Group 2. Another demographic variable captured the residence of surveyed participants. The majority of youth surveyed described their area of residence as Rural/Farm (48. 8 %, n =40), while the remaining youth were divided between Suburban (23. 2%, n =19) and Urban/City (28.0%, n =23). Due to the nature of the abovementioned demographics, each will be treated as independent variables throughout the remainder of the study. Levels of Involvement between Youth with Various Levels of Y AP Experience The first research question within this study sought to identify how levels of involvement differed between youth who have various levels of YAP experiences. The level of involvement youth had within the Florida 4 H youth adult partnership p rograms was determined using prior rosters from previous trainings as well as a series of items within the survey. These survey items asked youth to identify personal levels of involvement as well as the overall participation of youth and adult involvement within the various YAP experiences.

PAGE 59

59 Participation within YAP Training Data for participation within YAP trainings was collected using rosters from each of the five YAP program trainings, rather than on the survey. This was to help ensure proper grouping for those youth who had truly participated in a stateprovided training versus those who may have believed they were trained, but had not actually attended one of the targeted trainings. Group 1 represents the 23 respondents who actually participated in on e or more of the five selected YAP trainings within the study. Of those 23 respondents, six had only participated in one of the trainings, 13 had participated in two to four trainings, and the remaining four had participated in five to seven trainings, res ulting in a mean of 3.3 trainings. Between the trainings, EYSC had the greatest representation, with 18 (78.3%) of the 23 having participated in at least one EYSC training. The least represented training was OMK (8.7%, n =2). This, however, was to be expect ed as the majority of OMK training participants were youth of military personnel stationed on base, making them more difficult to contact due to reassignment to other bases. Facilitation of YAP Opportunities within the Community Within the survey, youth were asked to convey the number of opportunities they had to facilitate YAP programs within a local community setting using one of the five program areas established Health Rocks! OMK, YEAH!, Learning and Leading, and EYSC. Respondents were asked to report the number of YAP Opportunities for each of the five selected YAP programs. Six categories were available for response: 1) did not facilitate, 2) 1 -3 opportunities, 3) 46 opportunities, 4) 7-9 opportunities, 5) 1012 opp ortunities, and 6) 13 or more opportunities. Youth were also asked to identify any other opportunities they had for facilitation which they believed also

PAGE 60

60 constituted a youthadult partnership. Table 4-1 provides frequencies of facilitation for each progr am area. Table 4 1. Facilitation of youth adult partnership community trainings Opportunities to facilitate Health Rocks! ( n =83) OMK ( n =83) YEAH! ( n =83) Learning and Leading ( n =83) EYSC ( n =83) Other ( n =83) Did not facilitate 41 (49.4%) 42 (50.6%) 34 (41.0%) 54 (65.1%) 55 (66.3%) 68 (81.9%) 1 3 19 (22.9%) 17 (20.5%) 17 (20.5%) 3 (3.6%) 12 (14.5%) 4 (4.8%) 4 6 9 (10.8%) 9 (10.8%) 10 (12.0%) 6 (7.2%) 4 (4.8%) 1 (1.2%) 7 9 4 (4.8%) 5 (6.0%) 3 (3.6%) 4 (4.8%) 2 (2.4%) 0 (0%) 10 12 2 (2.4%) 2 (2.4%) 6 (7.2%) 4 (4.8%) 2 (2.4%) 1 (1.2%) 13 or more 8 (9.6%) 8 (9.6%) 13 (15.7%) 12 (14.5%) 8 (9.6%) 9 (10.8%) Youth who consistently responded did not facilitate for each of the areas were identified for inclusion in Group 3. Those youth in Group 1 or Group 2 indicated by their responses (59.0%, n =49) that the YEAH program provided them with the greatest opportunities to facilitate programming within their communities, followed by Health Rocks (50.6%, n =42) and OMK (49.4%, n =41). The six previously mentioned categories were then assigned a score from 0 (did not facilitate) to 5 (13 or more opportunities) in order to create a means for comparison between Group 1 and Group 2. For each of the five statewide programs distinct differences of facilitation opp ortunities can be found between the means of each group, as displayed in Table 4 2. Group 3 was not included in this table since, by definition of the group, they neither participated in trainings or in facilitation opportunities. Though none of the mean differences are statistically significant, it does appear that, overall, youth who were engaged in statewide training opportunities displayed higher levels of facilitation opportunities than did their non -trained counterparts.

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 2. Between group me an comparisons of YAP facilitation opportunities Group 1 ( n =23) Youth with training and facilitation opportunities Group 2 ( n =40) Youth with only facilitation opportunities t t est Sig. Health Rocks! M = 1.52 M = 1.55 .06 .95 OMK M = 1.78 M = 1.43 .81 .42 YEAH! M = 2.61 M = 1.88 1.52 .13 Learning and Leading M = 2.17 M = 1.20 1.89 .06 EYSC M = 1.61 M =0 .93 1.50 .14 Other M =0 .91 M =0 .80 .24 .81 Indicates significance at p ; ** Indicates significance at p Serving on Committees and Boards within the Community Youth were also asked to indicate the number of opportunities they had to serve on committees or decisionmaking boards within their community. This series of three questions included opportunities to serve on youth only boards and committees, youth and adult boards and committees and public committees (which included, but was not limited to those related to the local library, school/PTA, fire/rescue, EOC, church/faithbased, or hospital/medical). For youth only and youth and adult committees, youth were asked to indicate their participation on a scale according to five levels: 1) no opportunity to participate, 2) 15 opportunities, 3) 6-10 opportunities, 4) 1115 opportunities, and 5) 16 or more opportunities. For opportunities to serve on public committees, a more precise scale was used, ranging from 1 (no opportunity to participate) to 6 (13 or more opportunities). A oneway AN C OVA was run to det ermine whether significant differences existed among the groups. Table 4-3 provides the means, standard deviations, and AN C OVA results for participants as a whole as well as by group.

PAGE 62

62 Table 4 3. Committees and board service within the community Overall ( n =83) Group 1 Both Training and Facilitation ( n =23) Group 2 Only Facilitation ( n =40) Group 3 No Training or Facilitation ( n =20) df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Youth only committees or boards M =2.44 SD =1.06 M =2.73 SD =1.32 M =2.53 SD =0.91 M =1.95 SD =0.89 2 3.83 .03* .089 Youth and adult committees or boards M =2.63 SD =1.26 M =2.78 SD =1.41 M =2.75 SD =1.13 M =2.20 SD =1.28 2 1.41 .25 035 Public committees or boards M =2.52 SD =1.31 M =2.67 SD =1.32 M =2.63 SD =1.39 M =2.15 SD =1.14 2 1.83 .3 6 .026 Indicates significance at p ; ** Indicates significance at p Youth who either rec eived both training and opportunities to facilitate YAP programs or who only participated in the YAP opportunities both scored higher than the overall mean in each area, indicating more frequent involvement in community committees and boards than their cou nterparts who neither received training or opportunities. Results from the AN C OVA indicate significant difference for between -group for youth only committees or boards means at the p F (2, 78) = 3.83, p = 0 3 The effect size for this question, calculated using a partial eta squared, was .089 which indicates a moderate effect according to Cohens 1988 guidelines Additional ANCOVAs were run fo r the three group pairs (Group 1*Group 2, Group 2*Group 3, and Group 1*Group 3) to determine where the significant differences existed. Table 4-4 provides results from the se group-paired ANCOVAs. The ANCOVA results for each of the three group pai rs revealed a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 at the p F (1, 39) = 6.03, p = .0 2 partial eta squared = .134, indicating a moderate to large effect. A significant difference between Group 2 and Group 3 was also found at the p F (1, 57) = 5.53, p = .0 2 partial eta squared = 088,

PAGE 63

63 indicatin g a moderate effect. The one way ANCOVA for youth and adult committees or boards and public committees or boards showed no significant differences. Table 4 4. Group paired ANCOVA results for youth only committees and board service within the community df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Group 1*Group 2 1 .88 .35 .015 Group 2*Group 3 1 5.53 .02* .088 Group 1*Group 3 1 6.03 .02* .134 Indicates significance at p p Perceived Levels of Involvement within the YouthAdult Partnership The final component for determining levels of involvement within this evaluation was based on Jones Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale. As previously mentioned in Chapter 3, the scale was constructed with three sub-scales. For the variable, levels of involvement, two of the three sub-scales ( Youth Involvement and Adult Involvement ) were used. Youth were asked to read two contrasting statements related to their perceptions of either youth or adult inv olvement within their time in the youth adult partnership. Then, using a scale response from 1 to 10 placed between the two statements, they were asked to define their experience by marking the box closest to the statement that best described what they bel ieved to be true about their youthadult partnership. The stronger they felt about the response, the closer to the statement they were instructed to rate the item. Reliability analyses were run on each of the subscales. Cronbachs alpha reliability was st rong for both the Youth Involvement and Adult Involvement sub -scales at = .89 and = .90 respectively. A Shapiro -Wilk test was performed to determine the normality of the curve for the Youth Involvement sub-scale, both for the sample as a whole and for the individual groups. While the test for the Youth Involvement scale for all respondents suggests

PAGE 64

64 violation of the assumption of normality ( p = .01), the tests for each individual group indicate support for the assumption of normality ( p his research is interested in examining each sub-scale as it pertains to groups, normality is assumed to be true. Means for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were M = 8.62, M = 7.42, and M = 6.84 respectively. A oneway AN C OVA for each sub-scale was run to dete rmine whether significant differences existed among the groups. The Youth Involvement sub-scale indicated significant differences at the p betweengroup means : F (2, 7 2 ) = 6.01, p = 004, partial eta squared = 143, indicating a large effect size Additional ANCOVAs were run for the t hree group pairs to determine where the significant differences existed. Table 4 5 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair T he ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 at the p F (1, 35) = 13.71, p = .0 01 partial eta squared = 281, indicating a large effect. A significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was also found at the p F (1, 5 5 ) = 7.88, p = .0 07 partial eta squared = 125, thereby also indicating a large effect. Table 4 5. Group paired ANCOVA results for youth involvement sub scale df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Group 1*Group 2 1 7.88 .007** .125 Group 2*Group 3 1 2.09 .16 *** .038 Grou p 1*Group 3 1 13.71 .001** .281 Indicates significance at p ** Indicates significance at p A Shapiro -Wilk test was performed to determine the normality of the curve for the Adult Involvement sub -scale, both for the sample as a whole and for the individual groups. The test for the Adult Involv ement s ub -s cale for all respondents also suggests violation of the assumption of normality ( p = .002). The tests for Group 1 and Group 2

PAGE 65

65 appear to also violate the assumption of normality ( p = .002 and p =.037 respectively), while the test for Group 3 appears to support normality ( p violation of normality, the variable was transformed using a reflection/logarithm equation LG10 (K original variable) where K = largest possible value + 1. Following the transformation, the test for the Adult Involvement scal e for all respondents was again found to violate the assumption of normality ( p = .008). The tests for Group 1 and Group 3 now appear to support the assumption of normality ( p Group 2 appears to still violate the assum ption of normality ( p = .003). Following the transformation, means for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were M = 8.65, M =7.02, and M =7.78 respectively. A oneway AN C OVA was run to determine whether significant differences existed among the groups. The Adult Inv olvement sub scale indicated significant differences at the p F (2, 71 ) = 6.049, p = 004, partial eta squared = 146, which indicates a large effect. Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine where the significant differences existed. Table 46 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair. T he ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 at the p F (1, 55) = 11.09, p = .00 2 partial eta squared = 168, indicating a large effect. Table 4 6. Group paired ANCOV A results for transformed adult involvement sub scale df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Group 1*Group 2 1 11.09 002 168 Group 2*Group 3 1 2.68 11 ** .0 50 Group 1*Group 3 1 2.76 .11 ** 073 Indicates significance at p cance at p

PAGE 66

66 Youth from Group 1, who participated in at least one of the five statewide YAP trainings, consistently scored their perceptions of youth involvement and adult involvement higher than either of the other two groups. Youth Involvement and Adult Involve ment sub -scale item comparisons, including means and standard deviations for participants as a whole as well as by group, can be viewed in Tables B-1 and B2, located in Appendix. In the Youth Involvement sub-scale, youth from Group 2 scored youth involvem ent higher than youth in Group 3 on eight of the nine items. However, this trend reversed on the Adult Involvement s ub-s cale as youth from Group 3 scored adult involvement higher than youth in Group 2 on eight of the nine items. Therefore, it appears that youth from Group 2 tend to view youth involvement as a strong positive, with less favorable perceptions of adult involvement, while those who neither received training nor opportunities seem to view the adults they work with more positively than their G roup 2 counterparts. Perceived Quality of Interactions between Youth and Adults for Youth with Various Levels of YAP Experience The second research question within this study sought to identify how youth with various levels of YAP experience perceived the quality of interactions between youth and adults. This variable was determined using a series of four questions within the survey in which youth were asked to consider the quality of interactions that occurred between the youth and adults wi thin their YAP program. Interactions on Teaching Teams and Committees/Boards The first two questions provided youth a series of four statements and asked them to assess both their level of involvement and quality of interactions within two common YAP set tings: Teaching Teams and Planning Committees or Advisory Boards.

PAGE 67

67 A Chi -square test for independence to determine significant differences in frequency between the groups was not performed due to the small number of responses within many cells. Therefore, T ables 4 -7 and 4 8 simply provide the frequencies for each of these questions by group. Table 4 7 Crosstab results for interactions on teaching teams Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total Ive never participated. 2 (8.3%) 13 (54.2%) 9 (37.5%) 24 (100%) I ve never participated, but would like to. 1 (9.1%) 5 (45.5%) 5 (45.5%) 11 (100%) I currently serve, but do not feel it is a partnership. 0 (0.0%) 3 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (100%) I currently serve, and believe it represents an equal partnership. 18 (43.9%) 1 7 (41.5%) 6 (30.0%) 41 (100%) Total 21 38 20 79 Table 4 8 Crosstab results for interactions on committees Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total Ive never participated. 3 (27.3%) 5 (45.5%) 3 (27.3%) 11 (100%) Ive never participated, but would like to. 1 (20.0%) 1 (20.0%) 3 (60.0%) 5 (100%) I currently serve, but do not feel it is a partnership. 1 (20.0%) 3 (60.0%) 1 (20.0%) 5 (100%) I currently serve, and believe it represents an equal partnership. 16 (27.1%) 31 (52.5%) 12 (20.3%) 59 (100%) Total 21 40 19 80 It is evident from Table 4 6 and 47 that regardless of group, the majority of youth 41 of 79 (51.9%) and 59 of 80(73.8%) believe they are currently involved in either a teaching team or committee that is promoting the concepts of equal partnership among the youth and adults. While a small minority, it is interesting to note that it is the youth from Group 2 who most often indicated that they currently serve ( on a teaching team or committee), but do not feel it is an equ al partnership. Based in intentionality, this result was to be expected as these youth represent the group who is trying to function within a partnership without having participated in the trainings which have been designed to

PAGE 68

68 instruct both the youth and adults within the partnership on proper techniques to work through communication and leadership issues unique to this type of setting. Interactions within Committees and/or Boards The third question asked youth to define their perceived role as committee or board member according to three levels: 1) I have only been a token member, 2) I have experienced both being a contributing member and a token member, and 3) I have always been accepted as a contributing member. Again, a Chi -square test for independence was not performed due to the small number of responses within many cells. Table 49 provides the findings for each response by group. Table 4 9 Crosstab results for defined committee role Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total I have only been a token member. 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 4 (100%) I have experienced both being a contributing member and a token member. 18 (35.3%) 24 (47.1%) 9 (17.6%) 51 (100%) I have always been ac cepted as a contributing member. 2 (8.3%) 15 (62.5%) 7 (29.2%) 24 (100%) Total 20 40 19 79 As demonstrated in Table 4-9 the majority of youth 51 of 79 (64.6%) defined their overall experience working on committees and boards as being both contributory and token in nature. Though a small number of cases defined their role as only token in nature, it was youth from Group 3 that most often indicated that they have felt that way. Again, those youth have not been through the trainings which are designed to aid youth and adults in working together successfully in this unique setting. Perceived Quality of Interactions within the YouthAdult Partnership The final component for determining quality of interactions was based on the third, and final, sub-scale from Jones Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale : Youth-Adult

PAGE 69

69 Interactions Again, youth were asked to read two contrasting statements, this time related to their perceptions of the nature of interaction that occurred between youth or adult involvement during their time in the youth adult partnership. Then, using the same 1 to 10 scale response as used on the Youth Involvement and Adult Involvement sub scales, youth defined their perceptions of youth and adult interactions. The stronger they felt about the response, the closer to the statement they were instructed to rate the item. Reliability analysis was run on the sub-scale. Cronbachs alpha reliability was strong at = .94. Again, a Shapiro Wilk test was performed to determine the normality of the cu rve for the sub -scale, both for the sample as a whole and for the individual groups. The test for the Youth-Adult Interaction s ub -s cale for all respondents suggests violation of the assumption of normality ( p = .000). The tests for Group 1 and Group 2 appear to also violate the assumption of normality ( p = .004 and p =.019 respectively), while the test for Group 3 appears to support normality ( p the variable was transformed using a reflection/logarithm equation LG10 (K original variable) where K = largest possible value + 1. Following the transformation, means for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were M =8.86, M =7.70, and M =7.88 respectively. A oneway AN C OVA was run to determine whether significant differences existed among the groups. The overall Youth-Adult Interaction su b -scale indicated no significant differences at the p between groups: F (2, 73) = 2.92, p = 06 partial eta squared = 074 indicating a moderate effect. Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine if

PAGE 70

70 any significant differences existed between the group pairs Table 4 1 0 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair. Table 4 10. Group paired ANCOVA results for t ransformed youth adult interaction sub scale df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Group 1*Group 2 1 5.70 .0 2 091 Group 2*Group 3 1 .11 .74 .0 02 Group 1*Group 3 1 3.67 .06 .097 Indicates significance at p p T he ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 at the p F (1, 57) = 5.70 p = .0 2 partial eta squared = 091 indicat ing a moderate effect. Youth-Adult Interaction sub-scale item comparisons, including means and standard deviations for participants as a whole as well as by group, can be viewed in Table B-3, located in Appendix. Youth from Group 1 consistently scored their perceptions of youthadult interactions higher than either of the other two groups, as reflected by the differences in the means. Youth from Group 3 scored youthadult interactions higher than youth in Group 2 on five of the nine items including youth i nteractions with adults, agreement between the groups, provision of direction and mentoring, level of partnership when working on a project, and the level of mutual learning taking place. Potential for Continued Community Engagement for Yout h with Various Levels of YAP Experience The third, and final, research question within this study sought to determine whether youth with various levels of YAP experience would display different levels of potential for continued community engagement. This v ariable was determined using a

PAGE 71

71 series of five questions within the survey in which youth were asked to consider the impacts they have on their community through engagement in the community and their personal confidence levels, as well as their commitment t o the community including the importance of community involvement and their intentions for continued engagement with their community following the completion of the YAP program. Perceived Impacts within the Community Two questions provided youth with the opportunity to indicate the perceived level of impact they have within their community. First, a series of post -then items were used to assess the differences before and after participation in a YAP program using the responses 1) never, 2) rarely, 3) a few times, and 4) many times. The individual items were divided into three categories engagement, confidence, and commitment. Items within each category were tested for reliability. Table 41 1 provides the distribution of items. Table 4 1 1 Categorized items within community post then question Engagement Confidence Commitment I was responsible for teaching others I was confident in helping others I wanted to be more involved in my community I acted as a mentor to youth I was a confident boar d/ committee member I was committed to my community I planned learning activities I was confident in myself overall I worked to make my community a better place I believed I had an important impact on my community I knew how to identify i ssues within my community These items were condensed into three categories engagement (3 items), confidence (5 items), and commitment (3 items). Cronbachs alpha reliability, for both before and after scores, was calculated for each category to determine the confidence in the groups created. Table 4-1 2 provides the alpha scores for these results.

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 1 2 Cronbachs alpha reliability for each category Engagement Confidence Commitment Before YAP .821 .838 .896 After YAP .753 .781 .872 Strong reliability measures across the categories indicate that these items can be confidently grouped together. Once reliability was confirmed, a mean score was calculated for each respondent for each of these categories. A mixed betweenwithin subjects AN OVA was then conducted for each of the three categories (engagement, confidence, and commitment) to assess the differences in respondent scores (Group 1, Group 2, and Group3) across the two time periods (before and after) accounting for age as a covariate with in the calculations Perceived impacts on the community focused on two of these three categories engagement and confidence. For engagement, there was no significant interaction between groups and time period, Wilks Lambda = 96 F (2, 59 ) = 1.11 p= 34 partial eta squared = 04 There was no substantial main effect for time, Wilks Lambda = 1 00, F (1, 59 ) = .018, p =.89 partial eta squared = 00 0 It was also determined that t he main effect comparing the three groups was not significant, F (2, 59) = 2.11, p = .13, partial eta squared = 0 7 2 thereby suggesting no difference in the amount of change between the three groups. Table 4 -1 3 provides the findings within this item, including mean and standard deviation for respondents by group. Table 4 1 3 Mixed between within subjects ANOVA results for engagement Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Time Period n M SD n M SD n M SD Before 18 8.06 2.84 36 8.81 2.51 9 7.67 1.41 After 18 11.56 1 .04 36 11.17 1.46 9 9.89 1.83 There was a significant interaction between groups and time period for confidence, Wilks Lambda = .86, F (2, 57 ) = 4.64, p = .01, partial eta s quared = .140 In order to

PAGE 73

73 determine where this significant interaction was taking place, three additional mixed between within subjects ANOVAs were conducted comparing each individual group with one of the others Group 1* Group 2, Group 2* Group 3, an d Group 1* Group 3. No significant interactions were found for Group 1* Group 2 However, significant interactions were found in the Group1* Group 3 results : Wilks Lambda = 73 F (1, 23 ) = 8.67 p = 007 par tial eta squared = 27 0 and in the Group 2*Group 3 results : Wilks Lambda = 88 F (1, 41 ) = 5.45, p = .0 25 partial eta squared = 12 0 This suggests that the significant interaction that appeared in the initial mixed ANOVA results was due to the signific ant differences in change over time occurring between these two sets of groups With the significance of the interaction linked to the disparity between these two group pairs ( Group 1* Group 3 and Group 2*Group 3) main effects were cautiously examined. According to the results, n o substantial main effect for time appears to exist within confidence: Wilks Lambda = 1.00, F (1, 57) = .13, p = .72, partial eta squared = .002. Additionally, t he main effect comparing the three groups was not significant : F (2, 57 ) = .68 p = 51 partial eta squared = 02 0 s uggesting no difference in the amount of change of confidence between the three groups. Table 41 4 provides the findings within this item, including mean and standard deviation for respondents by group. Table 4 1 4 Mixed between within subjects ANOVA results for confidence Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Time Period n M SD n M SD n M SD Before 17 8.18 2.77 35 9.26 2.37 9 9.89 1.54 After 17 11.35 1.32 35 11.43 1.24 9 10.44 1.42

PAGE 74

74 No significant interaction occurred for engagement, indicating that there was no significant difference between the change in scores for the three groups. However, for the second category confidence the ability to confidently report the main effects within that category is limited since the main effect results may be impacted by the significant interaction between groups and time period for Groups 1 and 3. A second question for perceived impacts asked youth to indicate the level of impact they believed the YAP p rogram, itself, had on their local community using the responses 1) none, 2) a little, 3) some, and 4) a lot. Means for Group1, Group 2, and Group 3 were M = 3.52, M =3.05, and M =2.68 respectively. A one way AN C OVA was run to determine whether significant dif ferences existed among the groups. Results from this question indicated significant differences at the p groups: F (2, 76 ) = 4.49, p = 01, partial eta squared = 1 1 0, in dicat ing a moderate effect. Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine if any significant differences existed between the group pairs. Table 4 -1 5 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair Table 4 15. Group paired ANCOVA results for impact of YAP program df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Group 1*Group 2 1 5.05 .0 3 .08 0 Group 2*Group 3 1 2.27 .14 .0 39 Group 1*Group 3 1 7.75 .0 08 17 3 Indicates significance at p p Results from the ANCOVA for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant difference at the p between Group 1 and Group 2: F (1, 5 8 ) = 5. 05 p = .0 3 partial eta squared = .08 0 ( moderate effect ) as well as between Group 1 and Group 3 : F (1, 37 ) = 7.75, p = .0 0 8 partial eta squared = 17 3, indicating a large effect

PAGE 75

75 Commitment to the Community The second aspect of potential for continued community engagement explored commitment to community. The first question in this section came from the third category of the post -then items used to assess the differences before and after participation in a YAP program commitment. There was not a significant interaction between groups and time period for commitment, Wilks Lambda = 94 F (2, 54 ) = 1.72, p = 19 partial eta squared = 06 0 ; therefore, main effects can be examined with confidence. T here was no substantial main effect for time, Wilks Lambda = 99 F (1, 54 ) = .58 p =.45, partial eta squared = 0. 01 1 The main effect for the three groups was also not significant, F (2, 54) = .97 p = 39 partial eta squared = 0 35, suggesting no difference in the amount of change of confidence between the three groups. Table 4 -1 6 provides the findings within this item, including mean and standard deviation for respondents by group. No significant interaction occurred for commitment, indicating that there was no significant difference in the change of scores for each of the three groups. Just as with the other two categories, there appears to be no main effect for time or difference between the groups in any of the three categories. Table 4 16. Mixed between within subjects ANOVA results for commitment Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Time Period n M SD n M SD n M SD Before 17 13.35 5.14 33 14.00 4.21 8 12.75 2.77 After 17 19.06 1.68 33 17.73 2.58 8 16.00 4.11 A second question asked y outh to indicate how important they believed it was to have an impact on their community using the responses 1) not at all 2) not really that important, 3) somewhat important, and 4) very important. Means for Group1, Group 2, and Group 3 were M =3.83, M =3.62, and M =3.30 respectively. A oneway AN C OVA was

PAGE 76

76 run to determine whether significant differences existed among the groups. Results from this question indicated significant differences at the p groups: F (2, 79 ) = 4.19, p = .0 2, partial eta squared = 096, which indicates a moderate effect. Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine if any significant differences existed between the group pairs. Table 4 1 7 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair. T he ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed a significant difference at the p p 1 and Group 3: F (1, 40 ) = 8.44 p = .00 6 partial eta squared = .17 4 indicating a large effect. Table 4 17. Group paired ANCOVA results for importance of personal involvement within the community df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Group 1*Group 2 1 1.94 17 .0 3 1 Group 2*Group 3 1 3.73 06 .0 6 1 Group 1*Group 3 1 8.44 .00 6 .17 4 Indicates significance at p p The third, and final question, explored plans youth had for continued community service or outreach once their participation in YAP was over. Youth were asked to specify their response using the responses 1) not at this time, 2) I doubt it, 3) maybe, 4) probably, and 5) definitely. Means for Group1, Group 2, and Group 3 were M =4.43, M =4.68, and M =3.79 respectively. A oneway AN C OVA was run to determine whether significant differences existed among the groups. Results from this ques tion indicated significant differences at the p F (2, 78 ) = 5. 74 p = .005, partial eta squared = 128 ( moderate to large effect ). Additional ANCOVAs were run for the three group pairs to determine if any significant differences existed between the group pairs. Table 41 8 provides the resulting ANCOVAs for each group pair. T he ANCOVA results for each of the three group pairs revealed significant

PAGE 77

77 differences at the p 5 level between Group 2 and Group 3: F (1, 56) = 14.02 p = .00 0 partial eta squared = 20 0, indicating a large effect size Table 4 18. Group paired ANCOVA results for plans for continued involvement within the community df F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Group 1*Group 2 1 1.41 24 .0 2 3 Group 2*Group 3 1 14.02 .000* 2 0 0 Group 1*Group 3 1 2.11 16 05 1 Indicates significance at p p

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSS IONS, RECOMMENDATION S Within the Florida 4-H Program, several programs have sought to implement the youth adult partnership (YAP) model Healt h Rocks! Operation: Military Kids (OMK), Learning and Leading, Youth E mpowered Ambassadors for Health (YEAH! ), and Engaging Youth, Serving Communities (EYSC) This research sought to identify the importance of intentionally designed programming, throug h various YAP -specific experiences, on the overall quality of programming, as well as levels of engagement and quality of youth and adult interactions while engaged in the YAP program, and potential for continued community engagement following completion o f the program. Limitations The researcher recommends exercising caution generalizing beyond the group identified. Several limitations existed within the design of this study. First, and foremost, the study was designed to capture youth responses for the v arious dependent variables (levels of involvement, quality of youthadult interactions, and continued community engagement) without simultaneously capturing the adult perspective for the same time period within the same partnerships. Youth may have been ei ther too critical or not critical enough when responding to the self and peer -related questions. Assessing the adult responses within the same partnership teams or identifying and surveying teams rather than individual members, would have provided a balancing of perceptions regarding dynamics within the partnership. Another limitation is that the evaluation desired to capture information from youth who had since graduated from high school and, therefore, have a significant distance between thems elves and their time within the partnership. It may have been difficult for

PAGE 79

79 youth who have experienced a more substantial allotment of time to pass to accurately recall events or perceptions during their YAP participation. On some items within the survey, it was decided that rosters would be used to avoid this complication of memory including in which trainings participation actually occurred. However, the remaining questions relied on those youth to recall events as potentially distant as five years pr ior. Nine out of the 23 youth in Group 1 were potentially affected by this issue with recall. However, the vast majority of youth in Groups 2 and 3 were still actively engaged within programs in Florida 4 -H T he researcher chose to capture responses from youth who were current or former members of the Florida Executive Board. These youth were chosen because of their similarities in leadership and civic engagement interests. However, it is possible that these youth were too much like their youthadult partnership counterparts since every year the Executive Board spends time hearing presentations about youthadult partnership programming from YAP teams and adults who assist with the Executive Board are well versed in the youthadult partnership model. Due to the nature of the Executive Board dynamics, t hese youth also have the opportunity to continually engage in close knit community building relationships similar to those promoted within the YAP programs Therefore, the results for c omparison could have been more significantly biased than if youth outside the Executive Board had been included in the study. Finally, the demographics of the groups contributed to a limited scope of participants. As conveyed in the demogr aphics section in Chapter 4, 86.7% of the respondents were White/Caucasian. While t his is comparable to the race distribution of 4 -H clubs throughout Florida 86.0% (ES237 Report, 2009) t his lack of diversity within

PAGE 80

80 the sampled population could be contri buting to bias within the results of the study. Similarly, almost half of the respondents (48.2%) defined their locale as Rural/Farm, rather than Suburban or Urban/City. This uneven distribution of locale may have also contributed to bias within the result s. Conclusions Levels of Involvement Hypothesis 1 stated that youth who have specifically participated in youthadult partnership trainings within the Florida 4 -H YAP programs between 2004 and 2009 would exhibit higher levels of involvem ent than those youth who have only facilitated YAP programs in their community, but lack appropriate training and those youth who have neither been trained in the youthadult partnership model, nor facilitated any type of youth adult partnership opportunit y. According to the independent t -test performed on the reported opportunity frequency level s a comparison of Group 1 and Group 2 resulted in no significant differences between the groups. Therefore, the youth who received train ing and those who only facilitated YAP opportunities in their community reported the same level of involvement for YAP facilitations within their communities, therefore failing to support the hypothesis. When asked about involvement on boards or committees within the community, only one significant difference emerged between the groups. Based on the significant results from the oneway AN C OVA for the three groups as a whole, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to determine w here the significant differences were occurring. The only s ignificant differences found to be occurring were between Group 1 and Group 3 in the frequency of involvement on a youth only board or committee. Therefore, youth who were trained were likely to be involved more often in youth only boards or committees

PAGE 81

81 than their counterparts who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. These results offer only slight support for the hypothesi s. Youth were also asked to assess the perceived involvement level for youth and adults within their partnership. Based on the significant results from the oneway ANCOVA on the Youth Involvement sub -scale additional ANCOVA pairs were run to det ermine where the significant differences were occurring. S ignificant differences were found to be occurring between Group 1 and Group 3 as well as between Group 1 and Group 2. Therefore, youth who were trained were likely to perceive the levels of youth involvement within the project significantly more positive than either of their counterparts those who only facilitated YAP opportunities and those who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Additionally, significant results from the oneway ANCOVA on the Adult Involvement sub -scale resulted in additional ANCOVA pairs being run to deter mine where the significant differences were occurring. The only significant differences found to be occurring were between Group 1 and Group 2. Therefore, youth who were trained were likely to perceive the levels of adult involvement within the project significantly more positive than those who only facilitated YAP opportunities. Support for the hypothesis seems to be stronge st within these two questions. Results from these 18 items seem to clearly indicate that the youth who underwent intentional training within the YAP program were more likely to perceive higher levels of youth and adult interest and involvement within the partnership than those who did not participate in the training. It seems, then, while actual frequency of involvement within these community projects seems consistent across the three groups,

PAGE 82

82 the perceived levels of youth and adult involvement within the partnership itself increases when youth have participated in training. Quality of Interactions Hypothesis 2 stated that youth who have specifically participated in youthadult partnership trainings will report higher perceived quality of interactions between youth and adults within their program than those youth who have only facilitated YAP programs in their community, but lack appropriate training and those youth who have neither been trained in the youth adult partn ership model, nor facilitated any type of youth adult partnership opportunity. Youth were asked to consider the interactions that they had when involved on teaching teams or boards/committees within the community. No analyses to determine significant diffe rences between groups were able to be made due to too few respondents. However, of the 79 youth who did respond, only three have served on a teaching team that they believe did not represent an equal partnership. These three all belonged to Group 2 those who have not received training, but have facilitated YAP opportunities. While this result may indeed indicate support for the hypothesis, the inability to determine if a statistical difference exists provides thin support for this hypothesis. Youth were also asked to define their perceived role while on a committee. While no analyses to determine significant differences between groups were able to be made due to too few respondents, four of the youth who did respond defined their role on the committee as always being a token member. These youth came from Group 2 (1 respondent) and Group 3 (3 respondents). The majority of youth 51 of 79 defined their role throughout their experience on committees and boards as being contributory and token in nature. However, it is youth in Group 1 that had the largest percentage of

PAGE 83

83 participants (90%) define their role in that manner, versus Group 2 (60%) and Group 3 (47%). Without the ability to determine if a statistical difference exists, it is difficult to use this d ata to provide support for this hypothesis. In addition to their time on a committee or board, youth were also asked to assess the quality of the interactions they observed between youth and adults within their partnership. Based on the significant results from the one way ANCOVA on the YouthAdult Interaction sub -scale, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to determine where the significant differences were occurring. The only significant differences found to be occurring were between Group 1 and Group 2. Just as with the Adult Involvement sub scale, youth who were trained were likely to perceive the quality of interactions between youth and adults within the project significantly more positive than those who only facilitated YAP opportunities. Again, support for the second hypothesis seems to be strongest within the sub -scale provided by Jones. Results from these nine items seem to clearly indicate that the youth who underwent intentional training within the YAP program were more likely to perceive interactions between youth and adults within the partnership more positively than those who did not participate in the training. Therefore, while the quality of interactions experienced on community boards and committees seems consistent across the three groups, the results from the items which focused on the partnership itself seem to suggest support for the hypot hesis that youth who participated in YAP training opportunities were more likely to judge interactions between youth and adults within the partnership more positively than those who were untrained, but still facilitated YAP opportunities.

PAGE 84

84 Po tential for Continued Community Engagement Hypothesis 3 stated that youth who have specifically participated in youthadult partnership trainings will exhibit higher potential for continued community engagement than those youth who have only facilitated YA P programs in their community, but lack appropriate training and those youth who have neither been trained in the youthadult partnership model, nor facilitated any type of youth adult partnership opportunity. Youth were asked to rate items that were used to identify before and after participation beliefs on a series of statements regarding three categories engagement within the community, confidence, and commitment to the community. Results from the mixed between within subjects ANOVA for items within ea ch of the three categories engagement, confidence, and commitment indicated that only one significant difference occurred between any of the groups. Youth from Group 1 and Group 3 (those who received training and facilitation opportunities and th ose who received neither) reported significantly different increases in their levels of confidence when interacting within the community. Those who received no training reported only a slight increase in confidence, while those who participated in at least one state-led YAP training reported a significantly higher increase in confidence. Therefore, this data provides some support the hypothesis for higher potential for continued community engagement following participation in the program. In addition to th e post -then items, youth were asked to indicate the level of impact they believed the YAP programs had on their community. Based on the significant results from the oneway ANCOVA on this question, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to determine where the si gnificant differences were occurring. S ignificant differences were found to be occurring between Group 1 and Group 2 as well as between Group 1

PAGE 85

85 and Group 3 Therefore, youth who were trained were more likely to perceive the impact of YAP program ming within the community more positively than their counterparts who participated in facilitation opportunities without proper training, as well as those who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities Youth were also asked to indicate how important they believed it was to have an impact on their community. Based on the significant results from the oneway ANCOVA on this question, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to determine where the significant differences were occurring. The only significant differences found to be occurring were between Group 1 and Group 3. Therefore, youth who were trained wer e likely to perceive the importance of personal involvement within the community more positively than their counterparts who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. The final question within this variable asked youth to identify whet her they had plans for continued community service once their participation in YAP was over. Based on the significant results from the oneway ANCOVA on this question, additional ANCOVA pairs were run to determine where the significant differences were occ urring. The only significant differences found to be occurring were between Group 2 and Group 3 This suggests that youth who facilitated YAP opportunities within their community were more likely to engage in continued community service than their counterparts who neither received YAP training nor facilitation opportunities. Therefore, while the results from the post -then items i ndicate a consistent level of potential for continued community engagement across the three groups, thereby failing to support the hypothesis, the results from the final t hree items seem to provide some, albeit weak, support for the hypothesis.

PAGE 86

86 Discussio ns YouthAdult Partnerships in Florida 4 H Through the demographic findings of this study it appears that the availability of state led youth adult partnership trainings has been severely limited to a small portion of overall population. While youth from 27 counties of the 67 counties in Florida claimed to have experience facilitating youthadult partnerships within their community only nine have actually sent participants to a formal state-led training O f those nine, one county was the main contributor in the creation of partnership teams. This seems to indicate a need for additional training opportunities to be provided in order to expand the breadth of YAP programming throughout the state E xpansion to additional counties should target youth who are ra cially -representative of their areas and should include more members who are from urban or suburban areas making sure to be demographically representative of the local community or 4-H district Through the targeted creation of demographically -representat ive teams, the breadth of the programs foundation would in creasingly s trengthen across the state. In addition to expan ding the breadth of the youth adult partnership model throughout the state, it is important that trainings also demonstrate the benefits of incorporating the practices and philosophies of youthadult partnerships into additional program and community outreach settings thereby also increasing the depth of the model Currently, only five state-led programs utilize this program model and it does appear that YAP practices and philosophies are evident outside these programs (such as in the state Executive Board ). However trainings should also assist YAP teams in identifying other areas in which youth and adults come together to identify and im plement plans within the community (includ ing other 4 -H program areas or within the

PAGE 87

87 state council system) which would also benefit from incorporating these same practices and philosophies An i ncrease of both the breadth and depth of the youthadult partn ership model through targeted trainings would result in a stronger network of youth adult partnership teams across the state. However, prior to the creati on of new YAP teams (as suggested from the demographic findings of this study ), it was necessary to id entify whether the previously -trained teams were truly youthadult partnerships. O ne of the primary intentions of this study was to determine whether the Florida 4 -H youth adult partnership programs actually exhibited the qualities of a youth adult partnership as defined in Jones and Perkins (2005b) Continuum of Youth-Adult Relationships This accounts for the inclusion of the continuum sub -scales within the study questionnaire. Within the continuum exist five separate categories of potenti al youth adult relationships. Either end of this continuum contains programming models that exclude active input from the non dominant participants youth centered and adult centered leadership. The next step closer to the center of the continuum consists of collaborations where the nondominant group is allowed to provide some voice on the direction and implementation of programming decisions, though final say remains with the dominant group. Finally, the relationship at the center of the continuum provid es both groups of participants the opportunity to partner together in a balanced harmony of power and voice in order to reach a desired set of goals the youthadult partnership. Jones and Perkins (2005b) outlined various types of youthadult relationships based on the results from the Involvement and Interaction Ratings Scale.

PAGE 88

88 According to their defined levels, any group who scored high levels of youth involvement, adult involvement and interaction between the two groups would be seen as a youthadult par tnership. Based on the definition of high as provided within that article and Jones (2006) Extension publication, all three of the groups within this program would be considered as functioning as a youthadult partnership, even though two of the three groups have received no proper youthadult partnership training. This conclusion points back to two of the limitations with this study. The first aspect that could have affected this result was the lack of adult perceptions within the same team dynamic. The researcher chose to limit the scope of this research to youth as individuals, rather than include both youth and adult responses or analyze the responses by team. This lack of balance between both sets of contributors (youth and adults) could have biased the results since youth may have overestimated their perceptions of involvement or interactions that occurred during their time in the program. Second, the use of youth who so closely resembled their counterparts, and who were frequent audiences of various YAP presentations, may have also significantly biased the results. Through their exposure to the youthadult partnership materials, it is possible that youth who did not even participate in a partnership gained enough exposure while on the Executive Boar d that they perceived similar levels of involvement and interactions between youth and adults. There may not have been enough variability between the groups to indicate a marked difference in defined youthadult relationships as defined by Jones and Perkin s (2005b). However, the possibility exists that these

PAGE 89

89 planned exposures to YAP programming may subtly support the overall hypothesis of this study intentional programming results in greater levels of desired outcomes. Intentionality within the YAP Progra mming As previously stated, the theory of developmental intentionality is based on key precepts which govern the effectiveness of youth engagement within community youthbased programs (Walker et al., 2005). Programs are deemed most effective when attention is given to the long-term developmental outcomes throughout both programmatic design and philosophy of involved youth workers (Walker et al., 2005). These learning opportunities are deliberate and strategic, designed to maximize the desired developmental outcomes within the program, while remaining thoughtful and responsive to the needs of the youth being served. The provision of specific program training within each of the five YAP program areas provided the youth and adults with a foundation for success ful partnerships between the two groups. Youth are also more likely to achieve desired outcomes when actively engaged in the process as collaborators rather than simply recipients (Walker et al., 2005). Youth from G roup 1, who received this type of intensi ve, intentional training in the youthadult partnership model often responded more positively than their non-trained counterparts. Therefore, while not conclusive (since only partial support was present from two of the three hypotheses ), the results from this study suggest value exists for participating in this type of intentionally designed training B eing a part of a YAP team or a member of the Executive Board is collaborative in nature since b oth groups work as units, utilizing their skills in leadership, teamwork and communication to accomplish a set of goals over the course of the project. Therefore, the intentional incorporation of YAP workshops during the yearly Executive Board

PAGE 90

90 meetings, and within local communities, provided YAP teams with the opportunity to practice the learned skills as they actively work to achieve a shared sense of purpose, direction, and goals within their presentations. Workshop p resentations to the Executive Board were also intentional in nature as adults who were trained in the youthadult partnership model sought to enhance the skills of Executive Board youth by exposing them to both the YAP program content as well as the skills necessary to successfully work in equal partnership with adults. Based on the results from this study, while not as high as their trained counterparts, youth on the Executive Board did appear to exhibit similar characteristics of those youth within a true youthadult partnership. Through their engagement in these programs, they have developed the skills necessary to continue being active leaders within their communities. Continued Community Engagement As noted in the conclusion section, the results from the majority of continued community engagement items indicate a co nsistent level of potential for community across the three groups, failing to support the hypothesis. This, however, is not a negative finding. Much of the literature on community youth development developed from the work of Little (1993), Eccles and Gootm an (2002), and Lerner (2004) in what has come to be known as the six Cs competence, confidence, connection, character, caring/compassion, and contribution (Lerner et al., 2005). These six Cs play a crucial role in understanding the goals and outcomes of community based programs aimed at enhancing youth development (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 22). Within this study, youth were asked to report their levels of competence, confidence, connection and contribution in relation to their communities. Each group sco red these items consistently higher than before their participation in the program. Based on the intentional programming

PAGE 91

91 provided through both Florida 4-H YAP and Executive Board, these youth seem quite intent to continue on their path of civic engagement within their communities. Recommendations From this research, it appears that youthadult partnerships are present in Florida 4 -H. However, as was stated in the conclusion of the History of Florida 4-H, some programs are opting to limit the training on creating a successful youthadult partnerships due to budget or time constraints. However, as this research has demonstrated, there are benefits to providing intentional programming through trainings and practice opportunities in order to most effecti vely reach the desired outcomes. Based on the conclusions of this study, t he following recommendations are made for practitioners and researchers within the Florida 4 -H program Caution should be used in generalizing conclusions and recommendations beyon d the population of Florida 4 -H YAP and Executive Board participants More Youth-Adult Partnership 4 H Training for Staff and Volunteers T he Florida 4H system as a whole should continue to incorporate the youthadult partnership model in more program areas, as well as within the state council system ( local, county and district councils). In order to promote intentional youth development programming and evolving youth adult partnership philosophies, professional development opportunities should be provided to staff and volunteers annually, such as during the YDI conference. More Intentional Training for County Youth Adult P artnership Teams Over t he past five years of youth adult partnering within the s tate of Florida only nine of the 67 counties throughout the state have actually participated in YAP trainings. Program trainings should be provided to counties which have yet to participate within these program areas. T he state 4 -H office shou ld provide at least one intentionally -designed opportunity each year for youth and adults to participate in YAP training. Each

PAGE 92

92 county should send at least one youthadult partnership team to this workshop in order to create a network of teams throughout th e state. As the demographics in this study revealed, a large majority of youth participants were White/Caucasian. A more concentrated effort needs to be made in order to pursue the creation of YAP teams based on the demographic representation of the district when organizing f uture trainings both for youth and adult participants Additional teams should also be identified and provided training within suburban and urban/city communities, since the majority of respondents who have received training live within a rural/farm locale. YAP t eams that are created should be utilized to work with county and district boards to increase the use of core youth adult partnership concepts as they facilitate YAP trainings and model proper YAP interactions. YAP t eams should also continue to facilitate YAP trainings and model proper YAP interactions during at least one yearly Executive Board meeting in order to promote healthy interactions between youth and adults within the program Further Evaluation and Research of YouthAdult Partnerships Further study of the applicability of Jones (2004) Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale to the Florida 4 -H YAP programming should be conducted using 4H youth who are only involved at the local or club level as a comparison group in order to make a distinction between the strengths of the Florida 4-H youthadult partnership programs and other youth who simpl y participate in the general 4 -H program. Future research should be conducted on existing youth adult partnership teams to identify whether perceived dynamics change once youth and adults are both included in the assessment. I t may also prove valuable to involve youth within other programs, such as Boys and Girls Club, to act as a comparison group in order to make a distinct ion between the strengths of the Florida 4-H youth adult partnership programs and other youth program s Yearly assessments of YAP t eams across the state should be conducted in order to maintain a more accurate assessment of th e health of Florida 4-H YAP programming rather than at the current five year interval This will present a clear er picture of how the partnerships are performing, while providing the youth and adults involved with the opportunity to address any issues that emerge as a result of the evaluation.

PAGE 93

93 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION Informed Consent

PAGE 94

94 Questionnaire

PAGE 95

95

PAGE 96

96

PAGE 97

97

PAGE 98

98

PAGE 99

99

PAGE 100

100

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX B ITEM RESULTS FROM JO NES (2004) IIRS Table B 1. Youth involvement items means comparisons Overall Group 1 Bo th Training and Facilitation Group 2 Only Facilitation Group 3 No Training or Facilitation Responsibilities for specific tasks or assignments M =7.48 SD =1.994 M =8.09 SD =2.068 M =7.35 SD =2.032 M =7.00 SD =1.715 Reliance on themselves to make key decisions M =6.82 SD =2.081 M =7.60 SD =1.142 M =6.60 SD =2.285 M =6.44 SD =2.281 Access to information needed to make decisions M =7.53 SD =2.239 M =8.77 SD =1.541 M =7.22 SD =2.304 M =6.67 SD =2.275 Opportunity to discuss concerns with the group M =8.14 SD =2.055 M =8.82 SD =1.893 M =7.87 SD =2.215 M =7.89 SD =1.779 Frequency of sharing ideas that mattered to them M =7.72 SD =2.360 M =8.59 SD =2.175 M =7.68 SD =2.368 M =6.78 SD =2.290 Equality of vote in the decision making process M =7.81 SD =2.039 M =8.38 SD =1.875 M =7.65 SD =2.058 M =7.50 SD =2. 176 Commitment to their duties within the project M =7.37 SD =2.190 M =8.14 SD =2.100 M =7.50 SD =2.100 M =6.17 SD =2.093 Excitement about their involvement M =7.55 SD =2.031 M =8.50 SD =1.336 M =7.52 SD =2.136 M =6.44 SD =2.007 Concern with community change M =7.68 SD = 2.073 M =9.14 SD =1.125 M =7.33 SD =2.056 M =6.67 SD =2.142

PAGE 102

102 Table B 2. Adult involvement items means comparisons Overall Group 1 Both Training and Facilitation Group 2 Only Facilitation Group 3 No Training or Facilitation Dividing responsibilities f or specific tasks or assignments M =6.39 SD =2.247 M =7.41 SD =2.130 M =5.65 SD =2.202 M =6.78 SD =1.987 Reliance on youth to make key decisions M =6.85 SD =2.407 M =7.86 SD =2.175 M =6.23 SD =2.630 M =7.00 SD =1.749 Providing youth with access to information needed for make decisions M =7.65 SD =2.171 M =8.41 SD =2.130 M =7.18 SD =2.319 M =7.78 SD =1.629 Communicating concerns with the group M =7.96 SD =1.990 M =8.68 SD =1.961 M =7.77 SD =2.032 M =7.50 SD =1.790 Encouragement of youth to share ideas that mattered to them M =7.64 SD =2. 296 M =8.77 SD =1.716 M =7.15 SD =2.402 M =7.33 SD =2.301 Provision of equal vote for youth in the decisionmaking process M =7.50 SD =2.068 M =8.36 SD =1.649 M =6.78 SD =2.259 M =8.06 SD =1.514 Commitment to their duties within the project M =8.34 SD =1.839 M =9.00 SD =1 .380 M =7.83 SD =2.159 M =8.71 SD =1.105 Excitement about their involvement M =7.99 SD =2.109 M =8.64 SD =1.989 M =7.56 SD =2.315 M =8.11 SD =1.605 Concern with community change M =8.11 SD =2.019 M =9.45 SD =0.963 M =7.59 SD =2.233 M =7.61 SD =1.787 Table B 3. Youth adult interaction items means comparisons Overall Group 1 Both Training and Facilitation Group 2 Only Facilitation Group 3 No Training or Facilitation Getting along well M =7.78 SD =2.036 M =8.36 SD =2.013 M =7.60 SD =2.036 M =7.47 SD =2.035 Perceived youth i nteractions with adults M =7.79 SD =2.032 M =8.77 SD =1.412 M =7.48 SD =2.2331 M =8.12 SD =1.654 Perceived adult interactions with youth M =8.58 SD =1.795 M =8.86 SD =1.885 M =8.53 SD =1.783 M =8.35 SD =1.766 Frequency of communication between the groups M =7.94 SD =1.877 M =8.82 SD =1.053 M =7.60 SD =2.122 M =7.59 SD =1.805 Agreement between the groups M =7.51 SD =2.087 M =8.27 SD =1.667 M =7.10 SD =2.329 M =7.47 SD =1.772 Provision of direction and mentoring M =8.42 SD =1.844 M =9.14 SD =0.941 M =8.13 SD =2.078 M =8.18 SD =1.976 Level of p artnership when working on a project M =7.68 SD =2.175 M =8.41 SD =2.016 M =7.28 SD =2.320 M =7.71 SD =1.863 Level of mutual learning M =7.76 SD =2.007 M =8.90 SD =1.513 M =7.15 SD =2.155 M =7.76 SD =1.602 Quality of communication between groups M =8.47 SD =1.756 M =8.71 S D =1.821 M =8.45 SD =1.739 M =8.24 SD =1.786

PAGE 103

103 LIST OF REFERENCES Agee, V. L. (1979). Treatment of the violent incorrigible adolescent Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior Engl ewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice -Hall. Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Beyond the village rhetoric: Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(3), 138159. Benson, P. L., & Pittman, K. J. (2001). Moving the youth development message: Turning a vague idea into a moral imperati ve. In P. L. Benson & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development: Visions, realities, and challenges (pp. 3 50). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Benson, P. L., Williams, D., & Johnson, A. (1987). The quicksilver years: The hopes and fears of early adolescence San Francisco: Harper and Row. Blum, R.W., & Rinehart, P. M. (2001). Reducing the risk: Connections that make a difference in the lives of youth. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health. Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope for the future Bloomington, Ind: National Educational Service. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality 5 4 106148. Camino, L. (2000). Youthadult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and researc h. Applied Developmental Science 4 (11). Catalano, R., Berglund, M., Ryan, J., Lonczak, H., & Hawkins, J. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatme nt 5 (1), doi:10.1037/15223736.5.1.515a. Clarke, R. V. G. & Cornish, D. B. (1978). The effectiveness of residential treatment for delinquents. In L. A. Hersov, M. Berger & D. Shaffer (Eds.), Aggression and antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence (pp. 143159). Oxford : Pergamon Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 104

104 Cooper, J. R., Altman, F., Brown, B. S. & Czechowicz, D. (1983). Research on the treatment of narcotic addi ction: State of the art. Rockville, MD : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Treatment Research Monograph Series. De Leon, G. & Ziegenfuss, J. T. (Eds.) (1986). Therapeutic communities for addictions Springfield, IL : Charles C. Thomas. De Vaus, D. (2001) Research design in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Delgado, M. (2002). New frontiers for youth development in the twenty -first century: Revitalizing & broadening youth development New York: Columbia University Press. De nner, J., Meyer, B., & Bean, S. (2005). Young women's leadership alliance: Youth adult partnerships in an all -female after -school program. Journal of Community Psychology, 33 (1), 87100. Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and preventio n New York: Oxford University Press. Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Fass, P. S. (2004). Encyclopedia of children and childhood: In history and societ y New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Friedman, A. & Beschner, G. M. (1985). Treatment services for adolescent substance abusers Rockville, MD : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Gold, M. & Mann, D. W. (1984). Expelled to a friendlier place: A study of effective alternative schools Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Guzman, L., Lippman, L., Moore, K. A., & OHare, W. (2003, July). How c hildren are doing: The mismatch between public perception and statistical reality (Research Brief #2003-12).Washington, DC: Child Trends. Hart, R. A. (1997). Childrens participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Heywood, C. (2001). A history of childhood: Children and childhood in the West from medieval to modern times Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

PAGE 105

105 Huebner, A., Mancini, J., Bowen, G., & Orthner, D. (2009). Shadowed by war: Building community capacity to support military families. Family Relations 58 (2), 216-228. Hughes, D. M., & Curnan, S. P. (2000). Community youth development: A framework for action. Community Youth Development Journal, 1, 7 -11. I saac, S. & Michael, W. B. (1971). Handbook in research and evaluation: For education and the behavioral sciences San Diego, CA: EdITS Publishers. Jae-Nam, L., & Young-Gul, K. (1999). Effect of partnership quality on IS outsourcing success: Conceptual fram ework and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 15(4), 29-61. Janz, N. K. & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1 47. Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press. Jones, K. R. (2004). An assessment of perceptions and experiences in community based youthadult relationships. Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, U nited States -Pennsylvania. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3157669). Jones, K.R. (2006). Youth -adult partnerships: Are you there yet? How to evaluate your 4 -H youth development program Cooperativ e Extension Service. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. Jones, K. R., & Perkins, D. F. (2005a). Youthadult partnerships. In C. B. Fisher and R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied developmental science (pp. 1159 -1163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pu blications. Jones, K. R., & Perkins, D. F. (2005b). Determining the quality of youthadult relationships within community based youth programs. Journal of Extension, 43, Article 5FEA5. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/a5.php Jones, K., & Perkins, D. (2006). Youth and adult perceptions of their relationships within community based youth programs. Youth & Society 38(1), 90 -109. Konopka, G. (1973). Requirements for h ealthy development of adolescent youth. Adolescence, 8(31), 2 25. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development American Psychologist 55 170-183. Lerner, R. M. (1995). Americas youth in crisis: Challenges and options for progr ams and policies Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PAGE 106

106 Lerner, R. M. (2002). Adolescence: Development, diversity, context, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lerner, R., Lerner, J., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25 (1), 17 -71. doi:10.1177/0272431604272461. Little, R. R. (1993). Whats working for todays youth: The issues, the programs, and the learnings. Paper p resented at the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families Fellows Colloquium, Michigan State University. Lofquist, W. A. (1989). The spectrum of attitudes: Building a theory of youth development. New Designs for Youth Development, 9 3 6. Luthar, S., Ci cchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development 71(3), 543-562. Mackintosh, M. (1992) Partnership: issues of policy and negotiation, Local Economy 7 210 224. McLaughl in, M. W. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development Washington, DC: Public Education Network. Mitra, D. L. (2002). Makin' it real: Involving youth in school reform. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, United Stat es -California. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3038124). National 4 -H Council. (2007a). Engaging youth, serving community: Final report. (Document No. EYSC005). Chevy Chase, MD. National 4 -H Counc il. (2007b). Youth-adult partnerships in community decision making. (Document No. YAP001). Chevy Chase, MD: Zeldin, S., Petrokubi, J, and MacNeil, C. National 4 -H Council. (2009). Health Rocks! : 4 -H healthy life series intermediate level. (Document No. 08381). Chevy Chase, MD: Fox, M. Norman, J. (2001). Building effective youthadult partnerships. Transitions 14 Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http:www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/transitions1401_7.htm Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

PAGE 107

107 Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs. cooperative learning. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborativelearning/panitz -paper.cfm Pittman, K. J. (2000). Balancing the equation: Communities supporting youth, youth supporting com munities. Community Youth Development Journal 1 (1), 33 36. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J. & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175183. Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Deve lopmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Schultz, J. A. (1995). The knowledge of childhood in the German Middle Ages, 11001350. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Pres s. Sheehan, K., & McMillan, S. (1999). Response variation in e mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 4554. Spector, P. E. (1981). Research designs Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Villarruel, F. A., Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., & Keith, J. G. (Eds.). (2003). Community youth development: Programs, policies, and practices Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Walker, J. (2006). Intentional youth programs: Taking theory to practice. New directions for youth development. 112, 75 92. Walker, J., Marczak, M., Blyth, D., & Borden, L. (2005). Designing youth development programs: Toward a theory of developmental intentionally. In J. Mahoney, R. Larson, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development Extracu rricular activities, after -school and community programs (pp. 399418). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 81 85. Wolff, T. (2001). The future of communi ty coalition building. American Journal of Community Psychology 29 (2), 263-268. Zeldin, S. (2000). Integrating research and practice to understand and strengthen communities for adolescent development: An introduction to the special issue and current issu es. Applied Developmental Science, 4 2.

PAGE 108

108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica Kochert is a true native of Gainesville, Florida. After graduating from Eastside High School, she attended Santa Fe Community College, where she received her a ssociate s degree in e lementary e ducation. She transferred to the University of Florida to complete her studies in elementary education with a b achelors degree in e lementary e ducation with a specialization in middle grade science. Following her completion of this degree, she took a teaching position at The Rock School, Gainesville, Florida. After teaching for six years, she returned to the University of Florida to pursue the role of a m asters student in the Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences. After this degree, she will complete her formal education with a Ph.D. in Agricultural Education and Communications with a focus on Extension Education at the University of Florida.