Engaging youth in community change: three key implementation principles

Abstract

Youth are an often untapped but potent resource for community change. To engage youth in community change coalitions requires more time, resources, and intentionality than many anticipate, making it imperative to base the work on well-established principles. Using outcome and process data from a multi-year initiative in seven communities, we describe beneficial results for youth, adults, and communities. The analysis of the most successful community-scale action finds that three implementation principles are critical: (1) asking the right strategic questions in the right order; (2) creating organizational structures and processes that integrate youth and adults into joint decision making; and (3) marshaling boundary-spanning community leaders with diverse skills and extensive networks. The research highlights how community development ideas can augment the predominant research emphasis on youth engagement methods and individual developmental outcomes, focusing attention on whether communities have the leadership and institutional capacity to nurture and sustain youth voice in public life.

Keywords:

• coalitions
• community change
• community youth development
• implementation
• youth civic engagement

Introduction

Young people are a powerful – if often untapped – resource in promoting community change that benefits children, youth, and families (Brennan & Barnett, 2009; Ginwright & James, 2002; Pittman, 2000). While public opinion often tends to view youth either as problems to be solved or as passive clients of community youth programs, an alternative view posits youth as civic assets whose insights and contributions are essential to build healthy communities. What choices do community developers face in pursuing this agenda? What principles should they consider as they pursue youth civic engagement? What strategies, organizational structures, and leadership skills are critical to success?

To answer these questions, this article draws on an evaluation that compared youth civic engagement approaches and outcomes in seven communities funded by the Sierra Health Foundation's REACH youth program (Campbell, Erbstein, Fabionar, Wilcox, & Cruz Carrasco, 2010). The program funded seven coalitions in the greater Sacramento, CA, region to engage youth and adults in planning and implementing community change strategies. Grantees received 9-month planning grants of $75,000; implementation grants of $200,000 per year for 3 years; technical assistance in the areas of youth development, coalition development, policy, and sustainability; and opportunities to apply for supplemental foundation resources. The initial guiding theory of change was the “Community Action Framework for Youth Development” developed by Youth Development Strategies, Inc., which posits a model of systems change to increase developmental supports and opportunities across multiple contexts (e.g., home, school, and neighborhood; Gambone, Klein, & Connell, 2002). The model emphasizes multi-stakeholder coalitions, institutional reform to coordinate youth services, policy changes that impact practice, and realignment of public and private resources to support local objectives. Although it is not a clearly articulated element of this framework, youth engagement was a guiding principle of the foundation program.1

Common features across the seven sites included a shared goal of linking meaningful youth engagement to community-scale change, exposure to training and capacity building led by a foundation-funded technical assistance team, and location in the greater Sacramento, CA, region. On the other hand, the seven coalitions varied significantly in their specific locale, median income levels, lead agency characteristics, coalition model or approach, and the chosen focus of their community change activities (Table 1). The ambitious goal of linking youth engagement to community change, the diversity of community settings, and the considerable freedom of grantees to experiment with different strategies and approaches made the initiative a rich but challenging research laboratory. The foundation offered participating communities guiding principles and frameworks but did not specify a specific intervention or community change objective, making it difficult to develop quantifiable comparisons.

Table 1. Comparing the seven research settings.

Community	Locale	Median household income*	Lead agency	Coalition form	Focus
El Dorado Hills	Upscale suburb of 30,000	$92,000	Existing community coalition	Hub for collaboration, grant seeking, and re-granting	Drug and alcohol abuse prevention
Galt	Small city of 28,000 and surrounding unincorporated communities	$30–70,000	School district	Activity hub for students from multiple schools	Developing youth master plan, service learning
Meadowview	Large urban neighborhood of 37,000	$29–35,000	Faith-based community organizing network	Community organizing	High school graduation rates, workforce development
Rancho Cordova	Newly incorporated city of 53,000	$46,000	Nonprofit social service agency	After-school youth group tied to preexisting collaborative	Youth safety
South Sacramento	Large urban neighborhood of 73,000	$27–32,000	Mutual Housing Association	Adult and youth committees on priority topics	Youth arts, safety, jobs, mentoring
West Sacramento	Growing city of 40,000	$27–36,000	Nonprofit healthcare provider	Youth group connected to youth/adult coalition	Increase youth voice in governance
Woodland	City of 52,000	$37–47,000	Family Resource Center	Youth group connected to youth/adult coalition	Teen pregnancy prevention, youth advocacy
Note: *Range reflects highest and lowest figures for different zip codes within the coalition's footprint area, based on US Census 2000 data, downloaded September 2006 at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

In light of this program context and the lack of robust theoretical models of youth participation in community development, the evaluation design treated the seven settings as natural case-study experiments (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Researchers built empirical generalizations from systematic, cross-case analyses of how to engage youth in community change (Zeldin, Petrokubi, & Camino, 2008). The approaches used a community development lens, a departure from the predominant youth development emphasis of most studies. Instead of emphasizing what it takes to engage youth and foster their individual developmental outcomes, the focus here is on the principles and practices that enable local coalitions to achieve successful community outcomes while including youth in meaningful roles.

The next section reviews key ideas and debates in the literature positing the significant promise of youth civic engagement as part of a community development strategy. After introducing the study's research methods, the following section describes the community intervention studied, including: (1) the nature of youth and adult participants, (2) youth engagement approaches and activities, and (3) observable program outcomes at the individual and community levels. The findings and discussion section argues that three emergent implementation principles should guide other communities as they craft youth engagement strategies. The conclusion argues that the insights of community developers are crucial in formulating questions for future research in what is still a relatively new field of inquiry.

Relevant literature on youth civic engagement

Research identifies multiple rationales for engaging youth in community change, including informing local planning and policy with unique youth knowledge and insight; accomplishing community projects with youth energy and labor; building strategic constituencies for community change; and holding decision makers accountable through youth advocacy (Checkoway & Gutierrez, 2006; London, Zimmerman, & Erbstein, 2003). For youth themselves, civic engagement can deepen civic commitment, extend social capital, create meaningful relationships with adults, foster self-esteem and identity development, and build a sense of self and collective efficacy (Gambone, Yu, Lewis-Charp, Sipe, & Lacoe, 2006; Hughes & Curnan, 2000; Irby, Ferber, Pittman, Tolman, & Yohalem, 2001).

Seeking to capitalize on this promise, youth civic engagement has been a research focus of scholars in the areas of adolescent development and democratic participation. Characteristics associated with successful youth civic engagement include viewing youth as assets and resources (Benson, 1997; Ferman, 2005; Lerner & Benson, 2003; Varney, 2007; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Wheeler & Edlebeck, 2006); fostering youth ownership of the process while providing adequate capacity-building opportunities and adult support (Camino & Zeldin, 2002; Carlson, 2006; Perri, 2007; Varney, 2007; Wheeler & Edlebeck, 2006); inviting youth to participate in public work with real consequences (Boyte, 2004; Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Hildreth, 2000; Nagda, McCoy, & Barrett, 2006); and involving a broad range of youth socializing institutions, organizations, and systems (Benson, 1997). Researchers have also documented a variety of specific vehicles for engaging youth in the community, including community service, youth-produced media, youth philanthropy, action research and evaluation, political activities, community organizing, and youth in governance (Gray & Hayes, 2008; Libby, Sedonaen, & Bliss, 2006; London et al., 2003).

An important segment of the literature argues against universal, one-size-fits-all approaches and in favor of tailoring initiatives to the circumstances of particular disadvantaged, and typically under-represented, youth populations and communities (Balsano, 2005; Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Sanchez-Jankowski, 2002; Sherrod, 2003; Sherrod, Flanagan, & Youniss, 2002; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Wheeler & Edlebeck, 2006). Some scholars argue that youth civic engagement should embrace a social justice orientation that helps disadvantaged youth (Ginwright & James, 2002; HoSang, 2006a; Libby et al., 2006; Evans & Prilleltensky, 2005). Others share the concern with engaging disadvantaged youth but emphasize the use of multiple civic pathways – including religious organizations, community colleges, the military, and AmeriCorps – to provide civic engagement opportunities that will benefit youth and communities (Flanagan & Levine, 2010).

Relatively little attention has been devoted to how communities organize efforts to integrate youth voice into community-scale change, although there are important exceptions (Carlson, 2006; Christens & Dolan, 2011; Ginwright, Noguera, & Cammarota, 2006; Sirianni, 2005; Zeldin et al., 2008). Many of the practical suggestions scattered throughout the literature emphasize youth development approaches. One approach emphasizes establishing a group where youth can explore new identities and rotate through various roles (Hildreth, 2000; Perri, 2007). Another emphasizes reflection and analysis so youth have space to explore variousconceptualizations of themselves and the community work (Hildreth, 2000). Others take advantage of kinship networks to build intergenerational mobilization efforts (HoSang, 2006b). Still another approach frames youth opportunities at multiple levels, from short-term, hands-on community service, to advisory roles on adult-led boards or projects, to shared leadership on significant community initiatives (Carlson, 2006; Wheeler & Edlebeck, 2006).

This research seeks to complement these useful ideas with key strategic considerations developed in the community development and public policy literatures. Of particular importance are well-established ideas about what it takes to build a successful community change coalition, including:

a.	clarity of purpose and focus: the ability to articulate overall community-scale change objectives with broad appeal while also establishing concrete priorities that compel the attention of task-specific groups (Gardner, 2005; Stone, Orr, & Worgs, 2006);
b.	community legitimacy: broad and inclusive membership that is sustained over time and engages youth voice in meaningful ways (Flora, Sharp, Flora, & Newlon, 1997);
c.	mobilization of resources: evidence that existing networks are tapped and expanded, partners are contributing their own resources to the larger effort, and resources are strategically realigned to support coalition goals (Gardner, 2005; Kubisch, 2005);
d.	policy development: a strategy targeting particular policies or systems to change and particular constituencies to mobilize (Kubisch, 2005; Stone et al., 2006); and
e.	institutionalization: evidence that the work has an organizational home, skilled staff, and decision-making processes that are fair and depersonalize conflict (Flora et al., 1997; Stone et al., 2006).

Research methods

The goal of this analysis is not to statistically compare outcomes or rank the relative efficacy of the various youth engagement methods and approaches used in the seven sites. That work will require a more controlled setting in which issues of validity and reliability can be ascertained with greater confidence. Instead, this research identifies key explanations for the overall pattern of success and failure across the seven cases. Confidence in these explanations is rooted in two factors. First, the research team had regular, repeated, and timely access to the ways in which initiative stakeholders of all types made sense of the initiative in their own thinking (Weick, 1995). Second, the team was immersed in extensive fieldwork, providing multiple and varied opportunities to objectively appraise what was happening and why. By comparing the insights, concerns, and reflections of stakeholders with differing initiative roles, both within and across local settings – and subjecting those to correction from research team perspectives as objective observers – the research pinpointed key lessons learned from the implementation process with a high degree of confidence.

Research team members (including two faculty and three graduate students) were each assigned to cover one or more of the seven community coalitions. During the 3-year period (May 2007–April 2010), data were collected on local processes, outcomes, and contexts, using these methods:

•	observations of coalition meetings, special events, and cross-site convenings (320 total);
•	multiple waves of interviews (recorded and transcribed) with youth and adult participants (including foundation staff, technical assistance providers, coalition staff and members, local community leaders unaffiliated with the coalition, and parents of youth participants), beginning in the first year of implementation (346 in all, 87 with youth);
•	youth and adult attendance documentation;
•	review of documents, including grantee reports to the foundation and newspaper stories;
•	youth-produced digital media documenting community issues in need of attention;
•	secondary data profiles generated for each locality using US Census data; and
•	surveys to document youth experience with community supports and opportunities.

Researchers coded interview transcripts and field observation notes, identifying coalition activities, outcomes, and challenges. Lead researchers for each local area used the coded materials and other data sources to prepare case analysis memos, using common guidelines. Each of the five research team members individually analyzed the full set of case memos to identify themes with respect to coalition development, youth engagement and community change outcomes, and implementation challenges. One strand of the analytical work examined practices associated with strong community-scale outcomes within cases and then looked across change processes. The team then collaboratively integrated individual researchers’ analyses into a final set of findings, seeking not only to document what worked well across the settings but why. This process was repeated twice, at the mid- and end-points of the research. To test the validity of our generalizations, researchers invited critique by community, technical assistance, and foundation stakeholders, who commented on draft reports. While more research is needed to test their applicability in other settings, the findings are supported by a consensus among initiative stakeholders and confirming evidence from our dataset.

The nature of the intervention

Youth and adult participants

Based on coalition attendance reports and observations by researchers during meetings, estimates of ongoing participation levels ranged between 12 and 18 youth and between 6 and 10 adults in each community. Over 3 years, more than 500 youth and a nearly equal number of adults were involved. Age distributions varied significantly across coalitions and included students in elementary school (23%), middle school (35%), and high school (42%). While the initiative had targeted 10- to 15-year olds, leaders were happy when they were encouraged to include older youth, who were often better able to understand and contribute to the work of community change. Youth participants were diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, and, to some extent, socioeconomic status, again with significant variation between coalitions. For example, in only one of the seven localities do White students constitute more than 50% of the public school population; some have sizable populations of three or moreethnic groups (primarily Latino, Southeast Asian, and African-American), while others are predominantly White and Latino. Recruitment strategies varied: in some cases, adults sought out youth thought to have leadership potential, in others they recruited disadvantaged, under-engaged youth.

Adult participants were drawn from a wide range of community sectors and types of organizations. Despite the tendency for some participants to view them as impenetrable bureaucracies, school personnel represented approximately one in four adult coalition members (Fabionar & Campbell, 2010). Other significant public partners included youth commissions, police, parks and recreation, mental health agencies, and transportation departments. In two cases, local faith-related organizations played important roles. As the initiative progressed, organizers began to realize that parents or caretakers were important partners. Subsequently, they reached out with activities to expand (1) social connections and relationships; (2) parent training and education; and (3) direct parental engagement in the coalition and/or with their children's schools. While all parents welcomed opportunities to socialize with other parents and build social connections, engagement proved especially important for parents of low socioeconomic status – especially immigrants and/or non-English speakers. Often disconnected from schools or other community institutions, these parents reported acquiring better understanding of the US educational system and knowledge about community resources that would enable them to better support their children (Cruz Carrasco & Campbell, 2010).

Coalition goals, activities, and approaches

The approaches that organizations used to engage youth included community service/service learning, media and art, philanthropy, research and evaluation, civic engagement, community organizing, and direct involvement in decision making and governance. The examples ranged in significance from one-time only community clean-up projects, to ongoing youth service on community boards or committees, to sustained efforts to organize youth voice in ways that change local institutions or policies (Table 2). While these types of activities have been documented in previous studies (Gray & Hayes, 2008), the unusually rich local data set helped identify three underlying approaches to youth civic engagement that cut across and undergird the more specific strategies. The three approaches have contrasting strengths and limitations, which community developers should take into account as they seek to adapt strategies to their settings, goals, and resources:

1.	Relational: This approach prioritizes establishing deep relationships with youth – meeting them where they are, spending significant time with them, listening to their concerns, and discovering their unique gifts and talents. This process builds relationships of trust and loyalty that are a basis for deep and sustained participation in community change efforts, as well as personal growth. However, the approach is time and resource intensive and dependent on adult capacities that are not always present.
2.	Activity-based: This approach creates multiple civic engagement opportunities for youth linked to an overarching community change objective, especially short-term, action-oriented projects that do not require sustained participation. This approach does not depend on deep relationships, provides opportunities for greater numbers of youth, and appeals to youth who do not necessarily want to spend considerable time attending meetings. On the other hand, it tends to attract those already inclined to participate and can sometimes be driven primarily by adult interests, since they often shape the activities.
3.	Agenda-driven: This approach pursues a community change agenda on its own terms and looks for multiple ways to engage young people in further defining and advancing this agenda. While assuming that youth will benefit from participation in the change process, this approach prioritizes community outcomes over individual youth outcomes. Youth are offered various ways to be directly involved in significant real world change efforts. On the other hand, this approach potentially exposes youth to situations for which they are unprepared or even places the broader, project purpose ahead of participating youth interests.

Table 2. Examples of youth civic engagement opportunities created.

Youth service  Volunteering, community service, and service learning	• Community clean-up and service projects • Organized event to raise awareness about disabilities • Organized Youth Leadership Conferences for hundreds of youth
Youth media  Participation through public art	• Produced and screened five youth-produced documentaries about community conditions^2 • Launched monthly art walk featuring youth-produced art • Painted murals representing city history on building walls
Youth philanthropy  Fundraising and grantmaking	• Raised over $20,000 to benefit children in Africa • Gave out mini-grants to support needy students, events, and emergency preparedness • Funded projects on hunger, literacy, and the environment
Youth in research and evaluation  Contribution to research design and implementation	• Survey identifies types of programs to be supported by parcel tax • Youth research displayed in comic book increases awareness about unsafe places
Youth in governance  Electoral activities, planning participation, and political voice	• Community members/youth inform youth master plan • Youth protest school budget cuts on steps of the state capitol • Sacramento mayoral candidates answer youth questions at debate • Youth share perspectives on school budget cuts with school board • Youth work with architects to inform park design • Youth advisory councils for city and community services district • Juvenile Justice and Delinquency committee reserves seats for two youth representatives
Youth organizing  Strategies to create institutional change	• Students mobilize to press for changes in school discipline policies • Youth advocate for tax to fund youth programs

Evidence of youth-focused community change outcomes

Community change that promotes youth well-being can be viewed in various ways – as the aggregation of changes to individuals; as improvements to community organizations, networks, or policies; as measurable changes in community-scale indicators; or as an accumulation of changes across these scales. The initiative provided significant benefits to individual adult and youth participants, along with positive changes in youth-serving organizations, institutions, and policies. These benefits included acquiring new knowledge about youth development principles and practices, developing experience with a variety of specific youth civic engagement methods and approaches, and increasing institutional and civic leaders’ interest in youth input.

Interview and observational data indicate that a core group of more than 100 youth with sustained high levels of participation gained key developmental capacities, including:

•	meaningful relationships with adults within and beyond their coalitions;
•	skills in public speaking and in how to organize and lead meetings;
•	a heightened sense of civic responsibility;
•	knowledge about local systems and policy change strategies;
•	greater self-confidence in dealing with peers and adults;
•	additional knowledge about college opportunities and career ambitions; and
•	new connections with peers in their own and other communities, including those from socioeconomic or racial backgrounds very different than their own.

Broad, community-scale changes do not happen in a single leap but involve small steps that create visible results and build momentum. The seven coalitions produced a number of such promising achievements related to key policy or community development outcomes (Table 3). Accomplishments included shaping more positive public perceptions of youth, embedding youth development and engagement principles within key institutions, informing community planning and design, building social and political capital, generating new investments and resources, and developing new policies. All seven coalitions enhanced community capacity by becoming catalysts for youth-related activity in their respective communities, although they also struggled with one or more key functions, including broadening and retaining membership, mobilizing community resources beyond those provided by the grant or the lead organization, and finding structures and processes that effectively integrate youth and adults into decision making. Overall, stakeholders expressed pride but with some ambivalence about the results: glad for the achievements, but acutely aware that their impact on community-scale indicators or policy reform had fallen short of the relatively high expectations originally accompanying the grant.

Table 3. Promising steps toward community change.

Shape public perceptions/agenda setting	• Foster positive media coverage of youth • Focus attention on key youth issues and potential solutions • Focus public on the problems of underage drinking, tobacco, and drug use • Youth inform discussions of teen pregnancy, school budget cuts, etc. • Youth research with university partner leads to recommendations on transportation, community pride, education, and recreation
Embed youth engagement in institutions	• Created a local go-to place for youth development ideas and activities • School superintendent commits to train staff in youth development• Service learning method diffused throughout community • Parks and Recreation Department starts a youth advisory council • New youth council created at a low-income housing development • Revive city youth commission • Build support for school board's student representative to be a voting member
Inform community planning and design	• Community adopts comprehensive youth master plan covering ages 0–24 • Youth voice and perspective help gain new public bus routes • Youth helps design neighborhood park • Collect data and built support for youth safety compact
Build social and political capital	• Increase youth and their parents/caretakers contact with elected officials, agency representatives, and other community leaders • City departments and schools report working more collaboratively • Strengthen community links with local university
Generate new investments and resources	• Secured large and small new grants for community youth programs • City council supports a 15-year lease on space for a new youth center • Expand nonprofit training in organic food production and nutrition education • Expand Parent Home Visit Project and Parent University – strategies increasing student achievement and graduation • Partner with workforce development agency to increase pre-employment training and educate businesses about youth hiring • Partnered with a regional nonprofit to develop an urban farm stand • Peer mediation and anger management classes at four schools led to decreased suspensions and disruptions and increased test scores
Create new or improved public policies	• Student organizing reshapes discipline policy, student–teacher relationships, and maintenance procedures at the local high school • Advocate for a city parcel tax for youth with youth-generated research • Collaborated on a social host ordinance

Findings and discussion: three key implementation principles

In examining outcome and process data for this study, the hope was to identify factors pivotal in enabling coalitions to produce promising community-scale outcomes. Looking first within each of seven cases and then across the cases, and guided by the insights and reflections of those who played roles in implementing the initiative, the evidence supports the important role played by three implementation principles:

1.	asking (and answering) the right strategic questions in the right order;
2.	creating structures that integrate youth and adults into joint decision making; and
3.	marshaling boundary-spanning community leaders with diverse skills and extensive networks.

Together these principles focus attention not on specific youth engagement methods, but on the degree to which communities have the leadership and institutional capacity to hold, nurture, and sustain this challenging work. The task is not simply giving youth voice; it is making sure that voice will be heard by focusing the goals and then building the necessary bridges to local organizations and policy makers.

Strategic focus: getting the questions right

Coalitions struggled to focus their efforts, especially in the early stages. Not only was there a tendency to hold onto too many community change priorities, but also coalition leaders conceived of youth engagement and community change as separate tasks. The coalitions with the most focused objectives built on preexisting collaboration but often struggled to integrate youth voice and priorities. Other coalitions spent most of their time and energy providing youth enrichment experiences without linking those to any overarching community change strategy.

The most promising work from the cases suggests three strategic questions whose answers will contribute clarity about how to integrate youth engagement and community change:

•	Which youth are the focus of the community change effort, both as beneficiaries and as engaged participants?
•	Which community transformations are high priorities, and how can they be enacted?
•	What specific contributions will youth engagement provide?

The three choices are interrelated: choices about “which youth” inform prioritization of objectives and strategy, which then inform choices about whether or how to feature youth civic engagement as part of the change strategy.

Which youth?

The youth population in a community embodies a wide diversity of backgrounds and experiences – differences associated not only with ethnicity, culture, language, socioeconomic status, and interests, but also factors such as immigration status, sexual orientation, involvement with the child welfare and/or juvenile justice system, family stability, or special needs. Efforts to pursue community change on behalf of and with youth must recognize whose insights and concerns are represented, understanding that different youth populations may have very different experiences in the same community. The foundation initiative defined itself in terms of the needs of “all youth,” but this orientation did not often translate into engagement with the most vulnerable youth (Erbstein, 2010). Grantees that did engage such youth over time demonstrated the high level of intentionality and commitment required to create safe, supportive, and meaningful settings that promoted their ongoing participation and leadership.

Which community transformations are a high priority, and how can they be enacted?

While a coalition can benefit from advertising a broad and inclusive goal – such as youth development – they must also articulate priorities that can mobilize activity to achieve specific policy or systems change objectives (Gardner, 2005; Stone et al., 2006). Choices abound. If the objective is policy change, coalitions must decide whether to strengthen the existing safety net or change the odds that youth will need it; expand the resource pie or redirect how current resources are deployed; and shape public perceptions of youth or influence youth-related legislation, rules and regulations. If the objective is systems change, they must discuss whether to build an “insider” network of service providers committed to systems change; facilitate an “outsider” community organizing strategy that builds and taps the knowledge and power of youth and their families to advocate for change; or opt for some combination of insider organizing with street connections (Burciaga & Erbstein, 2009; Noguera, Cammarota, & Ginwright, 2006; Yosso, 2005). If the objective is moving a particular community-scale indicator of youth well-being, coalitions need to consider how to institutionalize youth reflection on data. Whatever choices are made, getting the scale right is important. Coalitions can fail either by taking on too much superficial activity that does not appear to be going anywhere or by defining the problem in such broad terms that it is hard to generate a sense of momentum or progress (Weick, 1984).

Why and how to engage youth in the community change effort?

Once collaborating youth and adults have established priority community transformations and chosen strategies to effect those changes, strategic youth roles can be clarified. The findings highlight both costs and benefits of engaging youth. Among the costs are resource intensiveness; a slower pace (it takes time to build relationships, knowledge, and trust with youth); and the potential of reduced credibility in the views of some decision makers who may see youth as bringing little of real value. Corresponding benefits include:

•	young people's unique insights about their own challenges and resources;
•	youth energy and creativity;
•	youth networks that can be mobilized to support the change effort;
•	the creation of valuable leadership and social capital development opportunities for the youth themselves (building their capacity as civic actors); and
•	potential for increased credibility in the eyes of decision makers who share these values.

With adequate support, young people have the capacity to take on many types of leadership roles. Across the seven community initiatives, these included speaking publicly on behalf of the coalition, helping plan and facilitate meetings, leading workshops for other youth, and other tasks. To make sure these opportunities are both beneficial to them and efficacious for the community, it is best if youth roles are purposefully aligned with community change objectives.

Creating structures that integrate youth and adults in joint decision making

Efforts to build shared leadership among youth and adults reflected trajectories set by preexisting organizational arrangements. Paradoxically, both the presence and absence of preexisting collaborative infrastructure related to youth-focused community change proved challenging, each in its own way. Where communities had little preexisting infrastructure, the initiative supported the launch of a change process that intentionally built youth voice. However, the energy, focus, and time it took to establish a working coalition made it harder to achieve short-term goals. Where previous infrastructure could be built upon, there was a greater capacity to achieve short-term goals, but more tension about how to integrate youth voice into collaboratives which had not previously included youth leaders.

The struggles also reflected the nature of the lead organization. Grantees led by service delivery organizations had to adjust their traditional orientation towards youth as service recipients to engage them as co-creators of goals and plans. By contrast, community organizing groups readily embraced the ideal of youth voice but had a steep learning curve in creating developmentally appropriate settings for youth activity.

All seven grantees eventually created a separate youth group, finding it difficult to sustain youth participation without a regular venue for informal interaction with friends and engagement in youth-oriented activities. Youth groups forged a collective youth identity, created a setting for engaging youth in decisions, and promoted ongoing interaction with adults. Although all the groups had features that were similar to traditional after-school programs, a danger of functioning solely in this fashion was that it diverted staff energy from the broader community change goals and isolated youth from adult strategy discussions.

More intentional work is needed to support the creation of venues where youth and adults participate in joint decision making. Moving beyond token or trivial youth leadership roles requires a broader strategic perspective. Consistent with the findings of previous research (Christens & Dolans, 2011; Gambone et al., 2006), the most promising strategies in these communities used principles derived from the field of community organizing (often translated as “youth organizing” when young people are the key participants). In this approach, youth work with adult allies to elicit youth perspectives on problems or opportunities, then gather data to support change alternatives, and finally make their case to decision makers. Working in this fashion, effective adult supporters of youth had the ability to nurture an ongoing cycle of action and reflection that gradually built youth skills, knowledge, and confidence. Rather than simply holding meetings to hear youth input, skilled adult allies engaged young people in thinking critically about what they were doing, why, and what couldbe learned from the results. Intentional conversation with youth before, during, and after activities both fostered growth among young people and furthered strategy development with respect to defined community change objectives.

Mobilizing leaders with broad-based skills and networks

Coalitions had to activate or develop adult and youth leaders with requisite skills, community legitimacy and relationships, and sustained engagement. Many youth became powerful coalition leaders who were able to recruit new participants, develop and share skills, take on increased responsibility, and become known to local leaders. Two grantees found ways to develop youth leadership assets by hiring local youth and young adults as organizers/coordinators, pairing them with more experienced leaders, and creating ladders of responsibility for professional development.

Differences in the character, background, style, and approach of adult leaders explained the level and quality of youth engagement. The effects of program staff turnover offered key evidence of this point: the same institutional setting or program structure that worked well for engaging youth under one adult leader often worked less well when a new leader took over (or vice versa). The complex work required skills rarely found in any single individual, as suggested by this list of supports requested of technical assistance providers: training in basic youth development principles; knowledge of strategies that support youth engagement/youth voice; meeting facilitation skills (especially meetings with youth and adults); ability to engage with parents/caretakers across language and cultural differences; community organizing abilities with targeted youth populations and/or neighborhoods; concepts in systems/policy change and asset-based community development; ability to plan for organizational/fiscal sustainability; skill in evaluation and data gathering for results-based accountability; and knowledge of approaches used effectively in other communities.

Assembling a team with these complementary skill sets was more likely when leaders not only were experienced community developers or organizers themselves, but had also spent considerable time on the ground getting to know youth and adult social networks as well as community power brokers, politics, issues, and history. Grantees that cultivated existing local talent, instead of hiring individuals from outside the community, experienced less turnover and had an easier time establishing and maintaining strategic focus.

Summary and considerations for future research

This article has focused on how to pair high quality youth engagement with broad and effective community, policy, or systems change strategies. The comparative analysis of seven community youth development coalitions suggests that this work is quite taxing in terms of time, resources, and commitment, but worth pursuing due to the potential benefits for youth, adults, and their communities. These include observable increases in the skills, confidence and leadership of individual youth; increased integration of vulnerable youth and families and their unique insights into schools and the broader community; increased capacity of adults to foster settings that allowed youth voice to mature; increased adult appreciation of the value of young people's ideas and contributions; and small but tangible steps toward community change.

The difficulty in achieving broader community change goals in these seven cases can be attributed in part to the short 3-year time frame. But even with more time and money, many challenges would remain. As previous studies have found (Zeldin et al., 2008), this difficult work stretched boundaries and standard expectations for community leaders, organizations, funders, and young people. For leaders, it required a mix of attributes and capacities that is difficult to find: community rootedness, relationships, knowledge, and legitimacy; skills that span both youth development and community development; and access to support in extending and supplementing those skills via partnerships or technical assistance. For lead organizations where service delivery had been the main focus, it required incorporating cultural changes and staff skill development to support a new commitment to youth voice. For foundations, it required tempering the desire for quick results with patience, since the work takes more time and resources than most expect, particularly when commitments include ensuring representation of vulnerable youth populations or taking on entrenched conditions, perspectives, and interests. For youth, it required the emotional risk of building relationships with adults, operating in unfamiliar and often adult-oriented cultural and linguistic contexts, trying out new skills and making mistakes, and honestly sharing experiences of growing up in the local community. Some young people confronted even higher stakes challenges, such as negotiating differences between the coalition emphasis on youth voice and home settings where deference to adults was expected, navigating unsafe community territory to be present at meetings, and/or deciding whether to reveal immigration status.

As Christens and Dolen (2011) argued, research in this field has been bifurcated between a youth development focus on individual developmental outcomes and a community organizing focus on community-scale outcomes. Future practice and research will benefit by bringing these concerns together, integrating effective youth civic engagement methods with the broader strategic considerations reflected in the three implementation principles of strategy, structure, and leadership.

Key research questions suggested by this analysis include: What is the comparative effectiveness – with respect to both youth development and community change objectives – of relational, activity-based, and agenda-driven approaches to engaging youth in community change? Do the answers vary according to local context variables, and/or the specific youth population to be engaged? What are the characteristics of the most effective models for integrating youth and adult voices into community decision making? How might community coalitions or institutions make better use of community organizing strategies and techniques as a vehicle for integrating youth voice into institutional decisions? How do the three principles delineated here hold up in other contexts where localities seek to engage youth in community change?

By bringing community development ideas to bear in a realm often dominated by specialists in youth development, this research has identified important implementation principles that can shape more effective community practice. When combined with insights from the field of youth development, these ideas can form the foundation for more robust, place-sensitive conceptual models of youth engagement in community-scale change.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Sierra Health Foundation; Director of Program Investments Diane Littlefield and Program Officer Matt Cervantes created a context where honest reflection and learning were valued. We are grateful for the cooperation of REACH leaders and participants and technical assistance staff. Graduate students James Fabionar, Whitney Wilcox, and Lisceth Cruz Carrasco and See Change Evaluation staff Melanie Moore Kubo, Ashley McKenna, and Melissa Saphir supported data collection and analysis; Cathy Lemp made major early contributions. At UC Davis, John Jones (Center for Community School Partnerships) and Carrie Matthews provided administrative support. We received helpful advice from an evaluation advisory committee: Marc Braverman (Oregon State University), Leslie Cooksy (University of Delaware), and Elizabeth Miller, Patsy Eubanks Owens, and Dina Okamoto (UC Davis). For more information on the REACH program and copies of evaluation reports, visit Sierra Health Foundation's website: www.sierrahealth.org.

Notes

1. For more information, see http://www.sierrahealth.org/doc.aspx?22.

2. The videos can be viewed at http://www.reachyouthprogram.org/youth_media. For a more complete description and analysis of the youth media work, see Wilcox and Campbell (2010).