Abstract
After-school programs are prevalent across the world, but there is a paucity of research that examines quality within the “black box” of programs at the point of service. Grounded in current theory, this research examined hypothesized pathways between the experience of youth-adult partnership (youth voice in decision-making; supportive adult relationships), the mediators of program safety and engagement, and the developmental outcomes of youth empowerment (leadership competence, policy control) and community connectedness (community connections, school attachment). Surveys were administered to 207 ethnically diverse (47.3 % female; 63.3 % Malay) youth, age 15–16, attending after-school co-curricular programs in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Results showed that youth voice in program decision-making predicted both indicators of youth empowerment. Neither youth voice nor supportive adult relationships was directly associated with community connectedness, however. Program engagement mediated the associations between youth-adult partnership and empowerment. In contrast, program safety mediated the associations between youth-adult partnership and community connectedness. The findings indicate that the two core components of youth-adult partnership—youth voice and supportive adult relationships—may operate through different, yet complementary, pathways of program quality to predict developmental outcomes. Implications for future research are highlighted. For reasons of youth development and youth rights, the immediate challenge is to create opportunities for youth to speak on issues of program concern and to elevate those adults who are able and willing to help youth exercise their voice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdullah, H., Hamzah, A., Krauss, S. E., Mohd Yusuf, W., Dahalan, D. & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Kajian Pembangunan Kesejahteraan/Aset Belia Malaysia: Laporan Akhir (Study on Malaysian Youth Developmental Wellbeing and Assets: Final Report). Unpublished project report. Serdang, Malaysia: Institute for Social Science Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Ahmad, A. L., Rahim, S. A., Pawanteh, L., & Ahmad, F. (2012). The understanding of environmental citizenship among Malaysian youths: A study on perception and participation. Asian Social Science, 8(5), 85–92.
Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Ferrari, T. (2003). Participation in Boys and Girls Clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), 39–55.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454.
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benson, P., Scales, P., Hamilton, S., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research and applications. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner, (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 6(1), pp. 894–941). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Blanchet-Cohen, N., & Brunson, L. (2014). Creating settings for youth empowerment and leadership: An ecological perspective. Child & Youth Services, 35(3), 216–236.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
Camino, L. (2000). Youth–adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community youth work and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 11–20.
Camino, L. (2005). Pitfalls and promising practices of youth–adult partnerships: An evaluator’s reflections. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 75–85.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, The Task Force on Youth Development and Community Programs. (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Chinman, M. J., & Linney, J. A. (1998). Toward a model of adolescent empowerment: Theoretical and empirical evidence. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18(4), 393–413.
Christens, B. D., & Dolan, T. (2011). Interweaving youth development, community development, and social change through youth organizing. Youth & Society, 43(2), 528–548.
Christens, B. D., Krauss, S. E., & Zeldin, S. (in press). Malaysian validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth. Journal of Community Psychology.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Kleiber, D. A. (1991). Leisure and self-actualization. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 91–102). State College, PA: Venture.
Dawes, N. P., & Larson, R. (2011). How youth get engaged: Grounded-theory research on motivational development in organized youth programs. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 259.
Deschenes, S., Arbreton, A., Little, P. M., Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Weiss, H. B., & Lee, D. (2010). Engaging older youth: Program and city-level strategies to support sustained participation in out-of-school time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Dewey, J. (1938). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Collier.
Durlak, J. A. & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills: Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL).
Dworkin, J., Larson, R., & Hansen, J. (2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 17–26.
Evans, S. D. (2007). Youth sense of community: Voice and power in community contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 693–709.
Flanagan, C., Stoppa, T., Syvertsen, A., & Stout, M. (2010). Schools and social trust. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 307–329). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Forum for Youth Investment. (2012). Youth program quality assessment tool. Available at: http:www.cypq.org/downloadpqa.
Ginwright, S. (2007). Black youth activism and the role of critical social capital in black community organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 403–418.
Granger, R. C. (2008). After-school programs and academics: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Social Policy Report, 22(2), 3–11.
Granger, R. C. (2010). Understanding and improving the effectiveness of after-school practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3/4), 441–447.
Greene, K. M., Lee, B., Constance, N., & Hynes, K. (2013). Examining youth and program predictors of engagement in out-of-school time programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(10), 1557–1572.
Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record, 104, 178–211.
Hamilton, S. F. (1980). Experiential learning programs for youth. American Journal of Education, 88, 170–215.
Hamzah, A. (2005). Helping Malaysian youth move forward: Unleashing the prime enablers. Inaugural address. Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
Hamzah, A., Tamam, E., Krauss, S. E., Hamsan, H. H. & Dahalan, D. (2011). Kajian keberkesanan dasar pembangunan belia Negara dalam merealisasikan belia sebagai rakan pembangunan (Study of the Effectiveness of the National Youth Development Policy in Realizing Youth as Partners in Development). Unpublished report. Serdang, Malaysia: Institute for Social Science Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 25–55.
Hine, T. (1999). The rise and fall of the American teenager. New York: Avon.
Hirsch, B. (2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban youth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and New York: Teachers College Press.
Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2005). Developing social capital through participation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 41–55.
Jennings, L. B., Parra-Medina, D. M., Hilfinger-Messias, D. K., & McLoughlin, K. (2006). Toward a critical social theory of youth empowerment. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1–2), 31–55.
Kasumagic, L. (2008). Engaging youth in community development. International Review of Education, 54, 375–394.
Kirshner, B. (2007). Youth activism as a context for learning and development. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 367.
Kirshner, B. (2009). Power in numbers: Youth organizing as a context for exploring civic identity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(3), 414–440.
Krauss, S. E., Collura, J., Zeldin, S., Ortega, A., Abdullah, H., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Youth–adult partnership: Exploring contributions to empowerment, agency and community connections in Malaysian youth programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(9), 1550–1562.
Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children’s participation in democratic decision-making (no. innins01/9). Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Larson, R. W., & Angus, R. M. (2011). Adolescents’ development of skills for agency in youth programs: Learning to think strategically. Child Development, 82(1), 277–294.
Li, J., & Jullian, M. (2012). Developmental relationships as the active ingredient: A unifying working hypothesis of “what works” across intervention settings. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 157–186.
Lim, J. B. (2014). Mobile media and youth engagement in Malaysia. In X. Xiaoge (Ed.), Interdisciplinary mobile media and communications: Social, political, and economic implications, pp. 139–156.
Malaysian Institute for Research in Youth Development. (2011). Malaysian Youth Index 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.ippbm.gov.my/v3-en/index.php/component/content/article.html?id=253.
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 631–656.
McLaughlin, M., Irby, M. A., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. The Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138–146.
Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651–688.
Mitra, D. L. (2008). Balancing power in communities of practice: An examination of increasing student voice through school-based youth–adult partnerships. Journal of Educational Change, 9(3), 221–242.
Morsillo, J., & Prilleltensky, J. (2007). Social action with youth: Interventions, evaluation, and psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 725–740.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Commission on Resources for Youth. (1974). New roles for youth in the school and community. New York: Author.
National Task Force on Citizen Education. (1977). Education for responsible citizenship. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ndubisi, N. O., Khoo-Lattimore, C., Yang, L., & Capel, C. M. (2011). The antecedents of relationship quality in Malaysia and New Zealand. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 28(2), 233–248.
Nga, J. L. H. (2009). The roles of youth organisations in Malaysia’s political development. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Leeds: The University of Leeds.
Nga, J. L. H., & King, V. T. (2006). Youth organisations’ participation in the nation building of Malaysia. Department of East Asian Studies, The University of Leeds, UK. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/bangkok_papers/ngaking.pdf
O’Donoghue, J. L., & Strobel, K. R. (2007). Directivity and freedom: Adult support of activism among urban youth. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 465–485.
Ozer, E. J., & Schotland, M. (2011). Psychological empowerment among urban youth measure development and relationship to psychosocial functioning. Health Education & Behavior, 38(4), 348–356.
Pearce, N., & Larson, R. (2006). The process of motivational change in a civic activism organization. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 121–131.
Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., Villarruel, F. A., Carlton-Hug, A., Stone, M. R., & Keith, J. G. (2007). Participation in structured youth programs: Why ethnic minority urban youth choose to participate—or not to participate. Youth & Society, 38(4), 420–442.
Peterson, N. A., Peterson, C. H., Agre, L., Christens, B. D., & Morton, C. M. (2011). Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth in an urban community context. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(5), 592–605.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 243–258.
Roth, J. L., Malone, L. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Does the amount of participation in afterschool programs relate to developmental outcomes? A review of the literature. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3/4), 310–324.
Serido, J., Borden, L. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2011). Moving beyond youth voice. Youth & Society, 43(1), 44–63.
Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 325–337.
Strobel, K., Kirshner, B., O’Donoghue, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2008). Qualities that attract urban youth to after-school settings and promote continued participation. The Teachers College Record, 110(8), 1677–1705.
Vandell, D. L., Shernoff, D. J., Pierce, K. M., Bolt, D. M., Dadisman, K., & Brown, B. B. (2005). Activities, engagement and emotion in after-school programs (and elsewhere). New Directions for Youth Development, 105, 121–129.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Watkins, N. D., Larson, R. W., & Sullivan, P. J. (2007). Bridging intergroup difference in a community youth group. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 380–402.
White, J., & Wyn, J. (1998). Youth agency and social context. Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 314–327.
Whitlock, J. (2006). Youth perceptions of life at school: Contextual correlates of school connectedness in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 13–29.
Whitlock, J. (2007). The role of adults, public space, and power in adolescent community connectedness. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 499–518.
Wong, N. T., Zimmerman, M. A., & Parker, E. A. (2010). A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 100–114.
Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(4), 358–369.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 620.
Zeldin, S. (2004). Youth as agents of adult and community development: Mapping the process and outcomes of youth engaged in organizational governance. Applied Developmental Science, 8(2), 75–90.
Zeldin, S., Christens, B. D., & Powers, J. L. (2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3–4), 385–397.
Zeldin, S., Krauss, S. A., Collura, J., Lucchesi, M., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring youth-adult partnership in community programs: A cross national study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3), 337–347.
Zeldin, S., Larson, R., Camino, L., & O’Connor, C. (2005). Intergenerational relationships and partnerships in community programs: Purpose, practice, and directions for research. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 1–10.
Zeldin, S., Petrokubi, J., & McNeil, C. (2008). Youth-adult partnership: Disseminating and implementing an innovative idea into established organizations and communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 262–277.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Mariah Kornbluh and Brian Christens (University of Wisconsin-Madison) for their input to the conceptualization of this study, and Adriana Ortega, Abdul Hadi Sulaiman and Dzuhailmi Dahalan (Universiti Putra Malaysia) for their contributions to data collection. This study was supported by Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Research University Grant Scheme (Vote no. 9315100).
Conflicts of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interests.
Author’s contributions
SZ conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, and drafted the manuscript; SK conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, developed the measures and drafted the manuscript; TK performed statistical analysis and participated in the design and interpretation of the data; JC conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, developed the measures and drafted the manuscript; HA drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zeldin, S., Krauss, S.E., Kim, T. et al. Pathways to Youth Empowerment and Community Connectedness: A Study of Youth-Adult Partnership in Malaysian After-School, Co-Curricular Programs. J Youth Adolescence 45, 1638–1651 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0320-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0320-2