Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Bringing youth development full circle: exploring limited educational and work-based learning opportunities for youth development professionals
(USC Thesis Other)
Bringing youth development full circle: exploring limited educational and work-based learning opportunities for youth development professionals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 1
BRINGING YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FULL CIRCLE: EXPLORING LIMITED
EDUCATIONAL AND WORK-BASED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS
by
Jaynemarie Enyonam Angbah
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2018
Copyright 2018 Jaynemarie Enyonam Angbah
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 2
DEDICATION
To My Angels: My mother, Florence Audrey Torshie Angbah and my best friend, Tiesha
Oneika Sargeant. It is not lost on me that there is a spiritual covering over my life. God has
watched over and blessed me through so many challenges that seemed insurmountable. Mommy,
every day, I strive to live up to the example that you set for me. First and foremost, to be a hard-
working scholar and, secondly, to be a woman of humility and grace. I know that you are still
watching over me; that voice in my head that keeps me focused. I pray that I have made you
proud. Tiesha, my best and sister friend. I am extremely blessed to have had you in my life. We
grew, blossomed and evolved together. You were always a rock of support for me. Thank you
for always being my biggest fan and for reminding me that nothing is really impossible if you
want it bad enough. I still feel you cheering me on from heaven.
To the Young People and Families That We Serve: To serve children is not only a blessing; it
is a calling. For those of us who are called, we make the unyielding promise to educate, guide,
coach and support our youth. We remind them that, with hard work and dedication, their dreams
can become realities. We help them find their voices, their power, their inner strength and
sometimes their light when they feel surrounded by darkness. To the young people and families
who trust us with their lives, thank you. We will always do our best to give you our best, even
when it may seem challenging and difficult. It is what you deserve and what you should
unapologetically demand.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There were so many people who embarked on this journey with me. Please know that I
could not have done this without your help and support. You are greatly appreciated!
To the amazing colleagues and mentors who encouraged me to apply for doctoral studies,
Ms. Jane Quinn, Dr. Robert L. Selman and Dr. William Weisberg, thank you for believing in me
and being willing to vouch for my ability to pursue and complete this degree. To my dissertation
committee, Dr. Jennifer Bateman, Dr. Corinne Hyde and Dr. Lawrence Picus, I appreciate the
time and commitment that you all offered me during this process. You all are esteemed
professionals and scholars with a million and one things to do daily, but you all helped me get to
the point that I have a solid piece of work that hopefully will impact the field. Your
thoughtfulness, guidance and support are very much appreciated.
To my family and friends who listened to and encouraged me during this process, Auntie
Grace Amakye, Auntie Janet Amakye, Uncle Jimmy Amakye, Mrs. Natalie Hutchinson, Ms. A.
Naomi Jackson, Mr. Victor M. Jones, Esq., Mr. Fredy Mullins, Auntie Jane Okwesa, Ms. Kimika
Sergeant and Ms. Dafina Sharpe, Esq. An African proverb, explains that “it takes a village to
raise a child.” I would extend that to include that, it takes a village to get someone through a
doctoral program. Thank you all for the love and care you gave me to help me get through this
program. I feel blessed to have you all in my life.
To my beautiful sisters of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, Ms. Denise Bruce,
Dr. Kimberley Bugg-Allen, Dr. Robin Fleshman, Ms. Blayne Jeffries, Mrs. Susan Hobson-
Ransom, Ms. Michele McPhun, Ms. Racheal Ojo, MS, OTR/L, Dr. Joan Tropnas and Ms.
Patricia Weston-McNabb, to be bonded by our illustrious sisterhood is a gift. Thank you for the
hugs and encouragement that you gave me during this process. The check ins and advice
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 4
definitely helped me get through. To Dr. Paula Fleshman, thank you for your thought partnership
during the data analysis process. Connecting with you provided me with new and interesting
insights that added to the quality of this final project.
Last but never least, my USC OCL Crew, Dr. Jasmine Coleman, Dr. Jennifer Francis,
Dr. Terri Horton, Dr. Sheela Hoyle, Dr. Tammy Stevens, Dr. Joshua Swann and Dr. Diontrey
Thompson. Kwame Nkrumah wrote, “Revolutions are brought about by men, by men who think
as men of action and act as men of thought.” To my fellow revolutionaries and torchbearers,
we’re done with our doctoral studies; now, the real revolution begins. It has been an honor to go
through this journey with you all. We made a promise that we would help each other get through,
and we definitely did that. I am excited about how we will take academia and our industries by
storm. But most importantly, I am excited to see how our communities will grow, flourish and
evolve because of our commitment to being agents of change and social advocacy.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction 11
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Organizational Goal 12
Related Literature 14
Importance of the Evaluation 17
Description of the Stakeholders 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 20
Purpose of Project and Questions 20
Methodological Framework 21
Definitions 21
Organization of the Project 22
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 23
The History of Afterschool Programs and the Out of School Time Sector 23
Impact of Out of School Time on Holistic Youth Development 26
Role of Education and Professional Learning in Employee Quality 29
Educational and Work-Based Learning Opportunities in the Out of School Time Sector 30
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework 30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors 33
Knowledge and Skills 33
Identifying and Articulating the Competencies of Youth Development Professionals 33
Motivation 36
Organization 40
Organizational Influences 40
Youth Development Professionals as Part-Time Staff 41
Lack of Funding Available for Expanded Learning Opportunities 43
Lack of Clearly Defined Competencies and Professional Trajectory 44
Conceptual Framework: Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Context 46
Chapter Three: Methodology 50
Research Questions 50
Participating Stakeholders 50
Quantitative Sampling Criteria and Rationale 51
Quantitative Sampling Strategy and Rationale 52
Qualitative Sampling Criteria and Rationale 52
Qualitative Sampling Strategy and Rationale 52
Data Collection and Instrumentation 53
Surveys 54
Quantitative Analysis 56
Qualitative Analysis 56
Credibility and Trustworthiness 57
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 6
Qualitative Methods 57
Quantitative Methods 58
Validity and Reliability 58
Ethics 59
Limitations and Delimitations 61
Conclusion 62
Chapter Four: Findings and Results 63
Survey Overview 64
Exploratory and Comparative Data Analysis 64
CYDO Profile for YDPs and Affiliates 66
Organizational Influencers on Performance 72
Knowledge Influence 1 74
Knowledge Influence 2 86
Motivation Influence 1 88
Motivation Influence 2 93
Cultural Model Influence 1 96
Cultural Model Influence 2 99
Cultural Setting Influence 1 100
Cultural Setting Influence 2 105
Synthesis 107
Chapter Five: Conclusion 110
Recommendations for Practice to Address Influences 110
Knowledge Recommendations 110
Motivation Recommendations 114
Organization Recommendations 119
Youth Development Professionals as Part-Time Staff 122
Lack of Funding Available for Expanded Learning Opportunities 124
There Is No Clear Professional Trajectory for Youth Development Professionals 125
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 127
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 127
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 127
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 128
Level 3: Behavior 129
Level 2: Learning 132
Level 1: Reaction 136
Evaluation Tools 137
Summary 139
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 142
Limitations and Delimitations 144
Future Research 146
Conclusion 147
References 149
Appendix A: Survey 157
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 173
Appendix: C Survey Demographic Data 175
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals 19
Table 2: Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge Influence, Type and Assessment for Knowledge
Gap Analysis 35
Table 3: Stakeholder Goal and Motivational Influence and Assessment for Motivation Gap
Analysis 39
Table 4: Assumed Influencers 45
Table 5: Percentage of YDPs Indicating “Often” or “Always” Occurrence of Meeting
Activities 68
Table 6: Percentage of YDPs to “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” to Each Safety Item 72
Table 7: Mean Level of Agreement Per Subpart 76
Table 8: Mean Results Per Subpart 79
Table 9: Mean Comparisons Across Race/Ethnicity for Q16 80
Table 10: Means of Agreement on Youth Agency and Input Per Subpart 81
Table 11: Mean Comparisons of Agreement Across Race/Ethnicity for Q18 82
Table 12: Mean Levels of Confidence Per Age Group 83
Table 13: Mean Comparisons of Confidence Across Race/Ethnicity for Q22 84
Table 14: Mean Comparisons of Confidence Across Hours on Site per Week for Q22 84
Table 15: Mean Comparisons of Training Benefit Across Race/Ethnicity for Q21 91
Table 16: Mean Comparisons of Frequency of Activities Across Race/Ethnicity for Q27a-c 92
Table 17: Cultural Influence 1: Part-Time YDP Work Hours Versus Planning Hours 97
Table 18: Mean Comparisons of Training Benefit Across Race/Ethnicity Q21f, g 102
Table 19: Q6. Which of the following staff position titles most closely describes your
current role at [your site]? 103
Table 20: Comparisons of CYDO Positions from YDP Upward Across Race/Ethnicity for Q6 104
Table 21: What Skills Do You Think are Important for Youth Development Professionals
to Possess? 106
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 8
Table 22: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 111
Table 23: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 114
Table 24: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 120
Table 25: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 128
Table 26: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers 130
Table 27: Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors 131
Table 28: Components of Learning for the Program 135
Table 29 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 136
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Gap analysis process. Adapted from Clark and Estes (2008). 31
Figure 2: The interaction of stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational context. 47
Figure 3: Percentages of YPDs receiving trainings that speak to work-based learning that
improves instructional practices (Q20b-e) 89
Figure 4: How beneficial YDPs find trainings that speak to YDP work-based learning that
improves instructional practices (Q21b-e) 90
Figure 5: How frequently YDPs set, plan, and evaluate program goals at staff meetings 92
Figure 6: Length of time serving youth overall and at the site for YDPs 95
Figure 7: Comparison of mean level of educational attainment across number of hours YDPs
work on site per week 98
Figure 8: Percentage of trainings received (Q20f, g) that speak to YDP professional trajectory
across the hours YDPs work on site per week 101
Figure 9: Average Daily Attendance Dashboard 138
Figure 10: Yearly Tracking of Average Daily Attendance Results for All CYDO
Organizations 139
Figure 11: Comparison of ADA of Trained and Untrained Youth Development Professionals 139
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 10
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with establishing educational and work-
based learning opportunities for youth development professionals. This project employed a
mixed-method data collection and analysis approach. These professionals’ current understanding
of their role and the current educational and learning opportunities available to them were
assessed through surveys and interviews. Survey results revealed that a high percentage of
respondents expressed satisfaction in their roles and dissatisfaction in their career prospects
within the organization. Youth workers also confirm they receive limited in-person and online
training but find coaching and supervision from their managers beneficial. A high percentage
also indicated they have fewer than two hours of weekly planning time. Interviews were used to
triangulate survey results. While there are several learning experiences available, local youth
development professionals are not accessing them readily. Interviews provided insight into the
competencies essential to the role and the variety of resources available to front-line staff
members. Participants provided recommendations for tangible approaches to expanding the
career trajectory of youth workers and advocated for systemic solutions to address the barriers to
advanced work-based learning. The implications of this study have a direct impact on the
administrative and programmatic constructs of the out of school time sector. This study
culminates with an explanation of context-based solutions grounded in the literature, study
results, and the New World Kirkpatrick Model, in addition to an evaluation and implementation
plan and recommendations for future research.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Historically, the youth development field has been perceived as an informal learning
experience. From the purview of funders, policy makers, educators, and parents, these programs
merely supplemented in school learning experiences. Therefore, they were not essential to the
positive development of young people (Yohalem, Pittman, & Edwards, 2010). Over the last 20
years, the belief that the youth development field is supplementary and inconsequential to overall
academic and social skill development has started to shift as research indicates that participation
in high-quality youth development programs increases children’s skill development and
competencies (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Borden & Perkins, 2006; Thompson & Shockley,
2013; Weiss, Little, & Bouffard, 2005). Involvement in youth development activities has also
been found to be a prevention measure that mitigates participation in high-risk behavior like drug
and alcohol abuse, early sexual activity and gang violence (Little, Wimer, & Weiss, 2008).
Private and public funders incited by these findings have directed money into this field. This is
most evident in the federal government’s funding of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers, which funnels money into schools to support afterschool and summer programs (Borden
& Perkins, 2006). This influx of funding into youth development work heightened
accountability for the field, particularly in the areas of program quality and staff professional
development. Research has found that program quality can be measured by the implementation
of engaging activities and the relationships forged between program staff and participants (Weiss
et al., 2005). Therefore, developing a strong cadre of community youth development
professionals (YDPs), classified as “paid organizational staff who have chosen youth
development work as their primary career”, is essential to the effectiveness of these programs
(Borden & Perkins, 2006, pp. 102–103). These professionals play a major role in the delivery of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 12
youth development programming by serving as front-line staff members, program directors and
managers, social workers and volunteers (Borden & Perkins, 2006).
Organizational Context and Mission
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations (CYDO), a pseudonym, is a non-profit
organization whose mission is to enable young people to become civic-minded and academically
sound leaders with a plan for the future. CYDO serves 4,175 chartered independent
organizations across the country in stand-alone facilities, public housing, schools, military
installations and native lands. The organization’s history dates back to the late 1900s with the
founding of an enrichment program for boys in the northeastern region of the United States.
This initiative was developed to provide safe spaces and programming for school-aged boys
whose parents were engaged in factory work (Halpern, 2002). Over 20 years later, a group of
similar youth-serving organizations affiliated to create a CYDO. In the late twentieth century,
this federation evolved into a co-educational non-profit. Throughout the country and on U.S.
territories abroad, CYDO serves over 4 million youth. Fifty-five percent are male and 45% are
female, and they range from 6 to 18 years of age. Programs delivered to young people in this
setting focus on the areas of academic enrichment, civic engagement, healthy lifestyles, and post-
secondary readiness. The primary role of YDPs who work for CYDO is to facilitate strong
programs and build healthy and caring relationships with the young people served in these
facilities. In CYDO’s impact model, they cite youth interaction with these individuals as an
important component to the success of their programs (CYDO, 2017).
Organizational Goal
Addressing the issue of limited educational and work-based learning opportunities for
YDPs is relevant for all youth-serving organizations, including CYDO. The organization’s
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 13
vision is that all youth members will be on track to graduate with a plan for the future. CYDO’s
strategic plan for the next 8 years includes a vision for increased program quality, an internal
strengthening of the operations of member organizations, emergence as a national advocacy
agency, and an expansion of the number of youth served through its respective programs
(CYDO, 2017). The president and chief executive officer established these goals based on
assertions garnered from annual report data, relevant research, and consults from the senior
leadership team. This plan was then presented to the board of governors, who granted their
approval. It will subsequently be presented to and voted on by the consortium’s local
organizations. The achievement of CYDO’s goals will be measured by the data reports and
surveys collected at the close of each fiscal year from local board members, executive officers,
staff, and youth members (CYDO, 2017).
Although the strategic plan has four distinct pillars, this study focused on the goal of
increasing program quality because it is contingent upon YDPs’ expertise and readiness. This
benchmark asserts that, by the year 2025, the organization will have identified staff
competencies and practices that yield optimum impact for youth. Member organizations will be
held accountable for implementing professional development and evaluation plans for all staff
positions. These entities will also be expected to identify additional funding for training and
development. The expectation is that these improved practices will result in 75% of registered
youth reporting that they are engaging in a highly gratifying experience. CYDO classifies this as
the optimal programmatic experience (CYDO, 2017). CYDO (2017) posited that, when young
people are reporting an optimal programmatic experience, they are more inclined to be a globally
competitive graduate with college and career prospects. They are also more likely to make
healthy physical, social and emotional decisions, and maintain civic engagement through
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 14
leadership and active citizenship (CYDO, 2017). Given the amount of resources that will be
directed towards the strategic plan, further analysis of the issue of limited educational and work-
based learning opportunities is an essential component to achieving this goal.
Related Literature
Recent national surveys conducted by the U. S. government indicated that over 10
million children benefit from youth development programs (Yohalem et al., 2010). Yohalem and
colleagues (2010) asserted that there is significant diversity in the ages of staff members. Many
individuals enter the field early in their careers and often possess an associate’s or higher degree.
The workloads for these positions are high, yet these professionals receive low wages and are
privy to high regulation. These measures often result in high turnover rates and constant
leadership changes (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Yohalem et al.,
2010). The evidence highlights that administrators at effective organizations understand the
importance of having skilled YDPs; yet there are limited educational and professional
development opportunities available for their staff (Yohalem et al., 2010).
Youth development programs have an impact on the lives of young people. According to
Travis (2010), the role of YDPs is multi-faceted. These individuals are positioned to create a
nurturing environment for young people that fosters positive relationships, builds self-efficacy,
and enhances academic skills. Further educational and professional development opportunities
are necessary for YDPs to meet the demands of their job. Yet, the literature has not provided
consistent definitions for the competencies necessary for this field or a comprehensive
framework for the development of these workers.
Despite the lack of definition of work-related competencies necessary, research indicates
that youth work requires highly skilled and knowledgeable employees (The Annie E. Casey
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 15
Foundation, 2003; Stone, Garza, & Borden, 2005). The foundation of youth development work
is based on the workers’ ability to build strong relationships with young people and guide them
through experiential learning experiences that yield academic and personal growth. Since, often,
the exchange between young people and staff is a voluntary one, YDPs employ a variety of skills
to keep young people engaged (Travis, 2010). Harris (2014) found that youth workers think
critically and improvise in action to keep up with the non-traditional demands of this work. In a
study conducted by Borden and Perkins (2006), over 63 organizations were surveyed to
determine the need for additional resources and education for youth workers. While these
organizations agreed that additional supports were necessary, they were unable to identify the
fundamental needs of their workers. Therefore, they struggled with securing the appropriate
educational and work-based learning opportunities (Borden & Perkins, 2006).
National intermediaries have emerged to connect these youth development organizations
and professionals to training and technical assistance. They also lobby for further dialogue
around youth worker competencies and advocate for the recognition and value of these
professionals (Johnson, Rothstein, & Gajdosik, 2004). Organizations like the National Training
Institute for Community Youth Work and the Building Exemplary Systems for Training Youth
Workers network have elevated the systemic operations of youth development programs by
providing ongoing training and support. These networks have also led the development of
measures to ensure the quality and impact of these programs (Johnson et al., 2013). Yet, these
organizations face the ongoing challenge of establishing national standards for foundational
training, which requires a comprehensive professional development model. The inability to
define these competencies and systems at both the local and national intermediary level results in
a pervasive lack of educational and professional development opportunities across the field
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 16
(Johnson et al., 2013). Organizations that are often working with limited budgets focus their
attention and resources on supporting the staff in their respective programs, but they are not
connecting to a greater narrative that could potentially reach diverse funding streams and
enhance opportunities through higher educational institutions (Yohalem et al., 2010).
The role of the YDP is atypical in nature, not only because there are no clearly defined
competencies, but also because the work includes irregular hours, inconsistent salary, and a lack
of career advancement opportunities (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Yohalem et al., 2010;
Thompson & Shockley, 2013). In a study conducted by Shockley and Thompson (2012), youth
workers discussed being unprepared to manage some situations they encounter. They also
suggested that there was a lack of clarity around the best approach to dealing with workplace
challenges. In these instances, professional development is not only a source of enhancement,
but also a preventative measure for burnout and turnover (Shockley & Thompson, 2012).
Despite these challenges to the work, YDPs find fulfillment in their role, primarily because they
are impacting the lives of young people (Yohalem et al., 2010). Coupling this fulfillment with
educational and professional development opportunities may counteract the high turnover in the
field (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003). Participation in these advancement measures
imparts YDPs with the knowledge and skills valuable to their work. These learning
opportunities also increase self-competency in positive youth development and program
implementation (Evans, Sicafuse, Killian, Davidson, & Loesch-Griffin, 2010).
Studies indicate that there are limited resources and funding available to support the
ongoing learning and development of youth workers (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Borden &
Perkins, 2006; Huebner, Walker, & McFarland, 2003; Yohalem et al., 2010). Youth development
work is not present in the discourse on public education. Therefore, the employees who deliver
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 17
these programs lack legitimacy and may not appeal to funders as a viable investment (Borden &
Perkins, 2006). A definitive correlation between staff and program quality has not been proven,
although studies have found that a stronger workforce lends itself to stronger program quality,
particularly in areas where the youth development field excels, like positive relationship building
and social-emotional skill development (Bowie & Bronte-Tinkew, 2006; Little et al., 2008;
Travis, 2010).
Importance of the Evaluation
Youth development programs have an impact on the lives of young people. The
professionals who serve them are positioned to create a distinct environment that may differ from
other spaces that children interact in, like home and school (Evans et al., 2010). Many of the
youth who benefit from these programs are marginalized and have limited access to non-
traditional learning opportunities. Therefore, their participation in the youth development space
can serve as a turning point in the trajectory of their lives (Kremer, Maynard, Polanin, Vaughn,
& Sarteschi, 2015). Further educational and professional learning opportunities are necessary for
YDPs to meet the demands of their job.
It is important to evaluate CYDO’s ability to offer educational and professional learning
opportunities to YDPs because their readiness and success is closely linked to the organization’s
performance outcomes around increased program quality. Shockley and Thompson (2012)
proposed that, if staff members do not have the tools to fully understand their role and deliver
targeted instruction, youth will feel disengaged from the program experience. This may result in
them becoming disenfranchised in their ability to learn. It may also increase their skepticism
around connecting with adults in their lives and could ultimately lead to their choosing not to
attend CYDO programs after school (Shockley & Thompson, 2012).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 18
Exploring this topic may be new to the youth development field, but the increase in
accountability on both the public and private funding levels make it incumbent upon these
organizations to develop consistent competencies and a framework for educational and
professional opportunities (Yohalem et al., 2010). Yohalem and colleagues (2010) asserted that
this practice will ensure that the field continues to evolve, just as the communities and young
people who are served evolve. If the youth development field resists change, American society
could face a generation of young people who are not prepared to meet the demands of the 21st
century workforce (Evans et al., 2010).
Description of the Stakeholders
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations’ (CYDO) stakeholders include youth
members, staff, and communities of the local member organizations. According to CYDO’s
mission, the youth members are young people ages 6 to 18 who regularly attend and maintain
formal membership in these programs. These young people are often from marginalized
communities and require additional supports and services to successfully complete high school
and be primed for postsecondary education (CYDO, 2017). The staff members are the primary
touch points for these youth. They manage and deliver programming, build healthy and strong
relationships with the members, and refer participants to other services within the community.
Staff members are employed on either a part-time or full-time basis and include consistent
volunteers, such as corporate partners and board members. They are tiered according to their
primary roles and responsibilities. There is executive leadership that works with the board and
raises money. Centralized leadership oversees the day-to-day operations of the programs as well
as front-line staff that facilitate programs with the youth members (CYDO, 2017). Youth
development organizations differ from their youth-serving peers because they are community
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 19
based and focused. The mission of developing and supporting young people guides their
programming and decision making, so that they can, in turn, improve their respective
communities. Service programs and community advocacy projects are a staple of these
organizations (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003).
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations (CYDO) is a non-profit organization whose
mission is to enable young people to reach their full potential as productive, responsible and
caring individuals.
Organizational Performance Goal
CYDO’s goal is that by 2025, 75% of youth will report having a state of the art program
experience
Youth Development
Professionals
Youth Development Professionals Youth Development Professionals
By January 2025, CYDO
will create clear
competencies and quality
standards for professionals
who are responsible for
implementing outcome
driven programs.
By January 2025, youth
development professionals will be
exposed to the idea of continuous
quality improvement as it relates to
program quality and role readiness,
which will result in an increase in
average daily attendance.
By January 2025, youth
development professionals will
be able to identify an
educational trajectory aligned
with their future professional
goals.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 20
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Currently, CYDO has an internal professional development model that offers in-person
and online courses to all professionals, particularly those that are direct service providers. These
learning opportunities are aligned with a scope and sequence that builds upon the tools needed
for high-quality program implementation and behavior management (CYDO, 2017). According
to CYDO, the completion of these workshops is tracked by an online portal, but there is no
mechanism for tracking how the information learned informs day-to-day practice. This makes it
difficult to assess impact and create a pathway for the continuous improvement of YDPs.
While all stakeholders listed above are integral to fulfilling the mission of CYDO, YDPs
were identified as the primary stakeholder group for this analysis. These individuals are
responsible for the development and execution of the programs delivered to youth members.
Therefore, the overall achievement of CYDO’s mission is contingent upon the adequate
preparation and support of their front-line staff members.
Purpose of Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with establishing educational and work-
based learning opportunities for YDPs. The analysis focused on gaps in the learning
opportunities available due to a lack defined competencies around effective practice. The
analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed causes and then examined these
systematically to focus on actual or validated causes. As such, the questions that guided this
study were the following:
1. To what extent is the strategic leadership department of Consortium of Youth
Development Organizations (CYDO) meeting its goal of providing relevant and high-
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 21
quality educational and work-based learning resources to youth development
professionals?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements related to successfully
achieving the organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for the improvement of organizational practices in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources, particularly for front-line
staff members?
Methodological Framework
This project employed a mixed-methods data collection and analysis approach. YDPs’
current understanding of their role and the current educational and learning opportunities
available to them were assessed through surveys and interviews. Research-based solutions were
recommended and analyzed through a comprehensive approach.
Definitions
Afterschool or out of school time programs: Refers to any program that occurs outside of
traditional school hours and is not mandated by school attendance. There are no stipulations
around the focal point of these programs or locale and hours of duration (Lauer et al., 2006).
Community youth development professionals or youth workers: Paid organizational staff who
have chosen youth development work as their primary career (Borden & Perkins, 2006, pp. 102-
103).
Professional or work-based learning: Experiences on individual and collective levels in
professional settings (Lieberman, 1995).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 22
Youth development organizations: Organizations that offer programming designed to provide
inclusive and strategic activities that promote healthy holistic growth in young people
(Gambone, Yu, Lewis-Charp, Sipe, & Lacoe, 2006).
Organization of the Project
This report is organized into five chapters. The initial chapter provides an overview of
key concepts and terminology that are prevalent in the youth development and out of school time
field. It is important to note that both terms are used interchangeably throughout the study. The
first chapter also provides context on CYDO, including its mission, goals, and key stakeholders.
Chapter Two offers an examination of current research and scholarship on topics pertinent to the
study. It explores the history of afterschool programs in American society, the role of YDPs in
program implementation, and the current structural models in the sector. Chapter Three indicates
the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors that influence the study as well as
outline the framework for this research. This includes participant selection, data collection
methods and analytical approaches. The data is analyzed and assessed in Chapter Four while the
culminating chapter, offers recommendations for improved practice and future research.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review examines how the YDP role is defined across the out of school
time sector. Out of school time refers to activities, initiatives and programs for school-aged
children that occur outside of designated school hours (Lauer et al., 2006). The review of
pertinent research also explores the gaps in educational and work-based learning opportunities
provided to these individuals. This review begins with an overview of the historical context of
the out of school time field and the evolution of the YDP role. It includes a survey of the
demographics of youth workers and explores how these individuals impact program quality,
execution, and youth outcomes. Research that explores the barriers to providing educational and
professional development opportunities to these practitioners is presented as a basis for the
importance of this study. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, this section
culminates with an analysis of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational practices that
influence YDPs’ ability to seek and engage in learning opportunities within their organizations.
The History of Afterschool Programs and the Out of School Time Sector
While afterschool programs have been a part of the educational landscape since the late
19th century, the phrase “out of school time” emerged with the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (Lauer et al., 2006). Lauer et al. (2006) noted that, during this period, schools that were
underperforming, particularly in districts and communities classified as high-need, were granted
additional federal funding to expand their programming into the afterschool hours. The act
stipulated that the programming needed to occur after traditional school programming ended, and
it also had to support the development of children in core academic areas (Lauer et al., 2006).
While the No Child Left Behind Act was the first government-driven affirmation of the
importance of afterschool programs, it was also the impetus for an accelerated shift in the scope
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 24
and services offered by afterschool programs (Borden & Perkins, 2006; Little et al., 2008;
Yohalem et al., 2010). Understanding the history of the field and the dynamic shift in program
accountability is core to examining the current educational and professional learning resources
available to YDPs.
Scholars have classified afterschool programs as the first child development institutions
in the United States (Schneider, 1993; Halpern, 2002; Borden & Perkins, 2006). The first
documented units existed as boys’ clubs in the late nineteenth century. Halpern (2002) stated
that these programs were often stand-alone rooms or storefronts that housed boys who had no
safe spaces to dwell in after school. Individuals who created these units were driven by the
belief that the streets were unsafe for children and play was an essential part of childhood and
should not be allayed by a lack of wealth or resources (Halpern, 2002). In a survey of the history
of afterschool programs, Halpern (2002) posited that there were two historical events that primed
the creation of the field. One was the decrease in the need for children in the urban workforce.
The other was the expansion of the school system, which was preceded by laws that mandated
that children attend school.
Schools provided structured learning time for children, but they also assumed a rigid
schedule that set parameters for interaction between children and their peers, had clearly defined
hours for specific activities and had close relegation of manners and appropriateness (Halpern,
2002). This school culture elevated the need for spaces that were more recreational for children.
Afterschool programs served as this venue. The influx of immigration into cities across the
northeast and the overcrowding of tenement houses also created a need for these programs
(Cotrell, 2005). During school hours, children had spaces that accommodated the number of
attendees, but, after that time, children flooded into the streets (Kadzielski, 1977; Halpern, 2002).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 25
Afterschool providers at the time considered their programming as an ideal environment to
encourage American socialization. In a documentary directed by Cottrell (2005), afterschool
providers commented that early founders of their organizations believed that engaging children
with one another through sports and other organized activities would acculturate them into
societal norms (Cottrell, 2005; Halpern, 2002). This principle also led to the widespread
assumption that afterschool programs were created to serve low and middle-income youth
(Halpern, 2002).
For many decades after the inception of the out of school time field, afterschool programs
were facilitated by social service clubs and settlement houses (Halpern, 2002). There was an
immense amount of diversity in these institutions, which led to a wide range of programs and
services that were offered in the afterschool space (Halpern, 2002; Huebner et al., 2003). This
fundamental quality has not wavered in the out of school time field and has made it difficult to
define the sector (Halpern, 2002). Halpern (2002) noted that, in tracking the history of
afterschool programs, it is apparent that it is heavily influenced by shifts in society based on war,
immigration, social consciousness, and fiduciary security. Despite the constant reimagining and
evolution of the industry, Halpern (2002) asserted that, “After-school programs have defined
themselves in terms of protection, care, opportunity for enrichment, and play while
simultaneously defining themselves in terms of socialization, acculturation, training and problem
remediation” (Halpern, 2002, p. 179). It is a space distinct from school and distinct from family,
but very difficult to standardize. This is evident in programming as well as in the staff
configuration (Cottrell, 2005; Halpern, 2002; Huebner et al., 2003; Thompson & Shockley,
2013).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 26
The Afterschool Alliance (2014) found that 10.4 million children across the United States
participate in afterschool programs. This marks an increase from 2009 when 8.5 million children
participated and 2004 when 6.5 million did so (Afterschool Alliance, 2014). Even with the
steady increase in the need for these programs, staffing continues to be a challenge. The Annie E.
Casey Foundation (2003) estimated that there are approximately 4 million youth workers across
the United States. These individuals serve in full- and part-time roles. While many enter the field
early in life (late teens to mid-twenties), there are many who engage in this work who are in their
30s, 40s and 50s. The part-time nature of the position draws individuals from all walks of life,
for a myriad of reasons (Yohalem et al., 2010). Youth workers may have taken on the role while
completing high school or post-secondary education. They may also have been attracted to the
position while engaging in a major professional or personal transition (Yohalem et al., 2010).
There is heavy transition in the youth development field because most of the positions are part-
time with low wages (Shockley & Thompson, 2012). In 2005, the median salary was averaged at
$10 per hour (Yohalem et al., 2010). Although there have been a number of living wage
increases in the last decade, salary for youth workers is still considered low (Shockley &
Thompson, 2012). Despite these realities, YDPs still report high employee satisfaction, but they
express an interest in receiving more professional learning opportunities from their employers
(Shockley & Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Travis, 2010). This obstacle is
important to address because these individuals play a primary role in the quality and execution of
strong out of school time programs.
Impact of Out of School Time on Holistic Youth Development
The out of school time or youth development sector is an ever-evolving field. Although
Halpern (2002) has noted the core mantras of the services provided to youth have remained
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 27
consistent over time, it is important to note that implementation of these tenets has changed at
key moments in American history. Afterschool programs serve a range of families in different
income brackets. Traditionally, affluent communities have utilized them as supplemental
services (Halpern, 2002). At times of civil unrest, they have also been used to engage Black
children in affirming and culturally driven activities (Warfield-Coppock, 1992; Farmer-Hinton,
Sass, & Schroder, 2009). It is important to note that, until the Civil Rights Movement,
afterschool programs actively prevented and avoided enrolling children of color (Halpen, 2002).
With the advent of No Child Left Behind and 21st Century Community Learning Centers, the
primary focus of these programs has become providing academic and social enrichment for
children in low-income communities (Grossman, Lind, Hayes, McMaken, & Gersick, 2009;
Halpern, 2002; Lauer et al., 2006). This heightened accountability has drawn money to program
execution, but it has not led to the creation of consistent policies, practices and expectations
around program delivery, staff competencies and models of impact (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008;
Borden & Perkins, 2006; Johnson, Rothstein, & Gajdosik, 2004; Yohalem et al., 2010).
Research links participation in out of school time programs to positive youth
development (Evans et al., 2010; Travis, 2010; Weiss et al., 2005). Many studies show that
participation in high-quality programs can affect identity development, improve relationships
with adults, peers and schools, promote workforce readiness and increase social capital (Greene,
Constance & Hynes, 2013; Lauer et al., 2006). Yet, some scholars have argued that the current
body of literature is so broad in its definitions of participation (quality, dosage, breadth and
engagement) that it is difficult to definitively compare the outcomes of children who participate
in these programs versus those who do not (Roth, Malone, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010). Even given
the discrepancy in the literature, Roth and colleagues (2010) asserted that participation in out of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 28
school time programs does have a direct impact on school attendance, and particular programs
have made gains in increasing the academic and social-emotional development of youth. Since
there is a variance in the structure and quality of out of school time programs, practitioners and
policymakers have begun to more deeply explore effective program models (Little et al., 2008).
The Harvard Family Research Project (Little et al., 2008), which promotes current
scholarship and evaluation in the out of school time sector, has also provided insight into the
effect of out of school time programs on positive outcomes for youth. In their survey of a
decade’s worth of literature, the institution found that these programs do have an impact on
academic readiness, social-emotional development, prevention outcomes, in addition to health
and wellness (Little et al., 2008). Little and colleagues (2008) suggested that children who
participate in high-quality programs are less inclined to get into altercations at school, and they
have a positive outlook on their futures. These young people also develop initiative, build
stronger relationships with peers and refrain from drugs, alcohol and early sexual activity. These
young people also have a greater understanding of their bodies, make healthier food choices, and
more readily engage in physical activity (Little et al., 2008). Little and colleagues (2008) also
suggested that there are critical factors that influence the effectiveness of these programs. The
factor most central to this study is quality programming. Quality programming can be classified
by well-defined governing systems and practices, well trained staff, and targeted activities (Little
et al., 2008). Providing educational and work-based learning opportunities to YDPs is at the core
of the success of afterschool programs achieving their mission, therefore research needs to
explore this topic more intently.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 29
Role of Education and Professional Learning in Employee Quality
There are a number of definitions for professional or work-based learning in the research.
In some contexts, it is cited as professional development, and, in others, it is articulated as
professional learning (Lieberman, 1995). For the purpose of this paper, professional or work-
based learning refers to experiences encountered on an individual and collective level in
professional settings. These are the practices that lend themselves to both personal and
professional development and are grounded in inquiry and technical instruction (Lieberman,
1995). The literature has not provided clear competencies for YDPs primarily because different
organizations have created their own expectations based on their needs and interests (Halpern,
2002). Yet, it is consistent in defining the youth development role as skilled work (Harris, 2014;
Huebner et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2004). Organizations have merged to serve as advocates for
out of school time organizations and provide professional development opportunities to staff.
Recently, national alliances have begun to provide certifications to professionals in the field.
Still, this continues to be a recommended practice, not a mandate for service (Cottrell, 2005;
Johnson et al., 2013).
Yohalem and colleagues (2010) have recommended that the out of school time field
move to adopt universal requirements for YDPs. If done successfully, this may lead to the
development of research-based professional development scopes (Yohalem et al., 2010).
Professional learning has been examined in research in many concentrations, including
education, business and social services. Although articulated using a variety of terms, empirical
studies have found that, for professional development to be effective, it must enlist key
components like content focus, active learning, collective participation, duration and coherence
(Barlow, Frick, Barker, & Phelps, 2014; Simon, Campbell, Johnson, & Stylianidou, 2011).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 30
Currently, professional development sessions serve as the primary educational method for YDPs.
These sessions often allow staff members to be more engaged in the work and prevent the high
turnover that is pervasive in the out of school time sector. They are both a source of
enhancement and a preventative measure (Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Shockley & Thompson,
2012).
Educational and Work-Based Learning Opportunities in the Out of School Time Sector
As mentioned, youth development work is not part of the public education discourse, so
those who practice this work lack the legitimacy to appeal to funders (Borden & Perkins, 2006;
Yohalem et al., 2010). Intermediary organizations (Johnson et al., 2004) at both the local and
national level have been successful at advocacy and providing learning transfer to these workers.
Although practitioners and policymakers agree that this fills some of the void, they also
acknowledge that it does not promote systemic change or universality across the field (Johnson
et al., 2013; Yohalem et al., 2010). This study sought to explore the gap in YDPs educational and
professional learning opportunities.
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
This study utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, which is a
systematic problem-solving process for identifying possible causes of performance gaps and
determining appropriate performance solutions. The gap analysis process is divided into six
stages as shown in Figure 1.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 31
Figure 1. Gap analysis process. Adapted from Clark and Estes (2008).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic, analytical method that helps to
clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization. The researcher generated assumed causes for
the performance gap based on personal knowledge and related literature.
While researchers have not identified a consistent definition for the term, the concept of
learning often references a change in an individual’s attainment of knowledge or their ability to
execute a skill (Shuell, 2006). Krathwohl (2002) asserted that knowledge is a multi-dimensional
framework. The tangible information serves as the basis for the knowledge dimension. The act
of obtaining the information defines the social cognitive dimension. Factual knowledge,
conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge and metacognitive knowledge comprise the four
key components to the structure of the knowledge dimension (Krathwohl, 2002). The
knowledge influences explored in this study are aligned to each of the aforementioned
dimensions. This study sought to analyze how competency is articulated for YDPs and
subsequently developed through consistent professional learning opportunities.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 32
The foundation for effective work-based learning is a clear understanding of the
competencies essential for effectiveness in a respective role (Horn & Little, 2010; Johnson et al.,
2004; Lieberman, 1995). Although youth development organizations have different focal points,
they all employ individuals whose primary responsibility is program delivery and healthy
relationship building with youth. Mastery of these skills is closely linked to program quality and
executions (Borden & Perkins, 2006; Bowie & Bronte-Tinkew, 2006; Johnson et al., 2013).
Therefore, these organizations must be able to clearly outline these competencies for current
employees, future applicants and administrative leaders. This information can be characterized
as factual knowledge. Organizations committed to continuous improvement often have
established frameworks and systems for ongoing staff development. These learning
opportunities are designed to develop the knowledge and skills that yield effective staff
members. Professional learning exemplifies procedural knowledge. Incorporation of reflective
processes into daily practice engages the dimension of metacognitive knowledge, particularly if
the discourse is designed to reflect on the application of knowledge learned during a professional
development opportunity.
These interconnected knowledge dimensions have resonance when distinguishing the
qualities of an effective YDP. Factual knowledge sets the expectation of the information and
skills that a worker must possess to effectively serve the youth enrolled in the program. Once
staff competencies are clearly articulated, then an organization has the latitude to develop a
scope and sequence of learning opportunities that will expand employees’ readiness (Borden &
Perkins, 2006; Bowie & Bronte-Tinkew, 2006; Johnson et al., 2004). This also creates measures
of accountability for those who supervise these employees.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 33
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Factors
Through professional learning and supplemental educational experiences, youth
development organizations build a culture of learning among their staff members. This ensures
that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to deliver quality programming to young
people in the areas of social-emotional learning, healthy habit production, good character and
citizenship and academic readiness (The Search Institute for Consortium of Youth Development
Organizations, 2005).
Knowledge and Skills
According to Travis (2010), the role of YDPs is multi-faceted. These professionals are
positioned to create a nurturing environment for young people that fosters positive relationships,
builds self-efficacy and enhance academic skills. Yet, research also indicates that there are
limited educational and professional development opportunities available to these individuals
(Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Yohalem et al., 2010). This
literature review explores the knowledge and skills incorporated into YDPs’ work-based
learning. These learning opportunities may serve to develop competent out of school time staff
(Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Yohalem et al., 2010).
Identifying and Articulating the Competencies of Youth Development Professionals
Currently, most youth development organizations create standards that are applicable to
the mission and outcomes of their respective organizations (Bowie & Bronte-Tinkew, 2006;
Lauver & Little, 2005; Yohalem et al., 2010). Research indicates that, when organizations are
explicit about the definitions of the work, they were able to garner the interest of youth workers
in additional learning opportunities that ultimately led to higher program quality (Huebner et al.,
2003; Thompson & Shockley, 2013). Therefore, it is essential that youth development
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 34
organizations identify factual knowledge regarding the competencies and skills necessary for
YDPs to achieve mastery.
Components of work-based learning targeted to YDPs. While there is limited research
specifically focused on the effective practices targeted at YDPs, there are multiple studies that
look at the impact of work-based learning on in-school educators. Some of the themes in this
research are applicable to exploring professional learning in youth development organizations.
Studies have indicated that effective facilitators seek professional development to sustain and
increase their knowledge, yet educators with weaker skills are less inclined to participate
(Desimone, Smith, & Ueno, 2006). For the conceptual knowledge of work-based or professional
learning to be instituted effectively into youth development organizations, it needs to highlight
career mobility and progression (Shockley & Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Shockley, 2013).
Incorporation of reflective processes. Metacognition is an important dimension of
knowledge because it is a theoretical approach that enables an individual to have insight on their
perception as a learner, reflect on the completion of tasks germane to their role, and think
critically about how to overcome challenges that may arise in the course of their practice (Baker,
2006). To be responsible role models for young people, YDPs need to have a firm understanding
of who they are as individuals and professionals (Shockley & Thompson, 2012). Metacognitive
practices like post-instructional debriefs or reflective conversations through learning
communities provide an environment for these workers to gain deeper understanding of
themselves and their skill sets (Attard, 2012).
The table below outlines the dimensions of the knowledge influences that need to be
incorporated into work-based learning opportunities to build competency among YDPs. Each
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 35
knowledge dimension builds the learning experience, yet true learning cannot be assessed unless
there is a level of metacognition promoted in day-to-day actions.
Table 2
Stakeholder Goal and Knowledge Influence, Type and Assessment for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations (CYDO) is a non-profit organization whose
mission is to enable young people to reach their full potential as productive, responsible and
caring individuals.
Organizational Global Goal
CYDO’s goal is that by 2025, 75% of youth will report having a state of the art program
experience
Stakeholder Goal
Youth development professionals will be equipped with the skills that they need to deliver high-
quality programs, which will ultimately increase average daily attendance.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual),
procedural, or
metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence Assessment
Youth development professionals
need to know the competencies,
skills and experiences necessary to
be an effective practitioner.
Youth development professionals
need to have a clearly outlined
scope and sequence for work-
based learning opportunities
provided by CYDO.
(Declarative)
Factual
(Declarative)
Conceptual
Youth development professionals
will be asked to define these
competencies in an annual survey
administered to staff.
Youth development professionals
will be asked to track the learning
opportunities that they have
participated in over the course of
the year. This document will be
reviewed during annual
performance reviews.
Youth development professionals
need to incorporate reflective
practices (knowledge of self) into
their own instructional debriefs.
Metacognitive Youth development professionals
will be asked to complete journal
entries at the close of each session.
Entries will include reflection on:
● Instructional techniques
● Session effectiveness
● Youth retention of
information
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 36
Motivation
Motivation is defined as “an internal state that initiates and maintains goal directed
behavior” (Mayer, 2011, p. 39). This multi-dimensional process is exclusive to the individual
and promotes behavior that is persistent, intense and designed to meet a pre-identified goal.
Eccles (2006) defined motivation as a key component of the learning process. CYDO (2017)
includes the pursuit of knowledge as an important quality in an effective YDP. The organization
also underscores the self-efficacy of front-line staff by setting the expectation that the actions
they perform may have an impact on the lives of young people, particularly those most
marginalized by society (Pajares, 2006). This review of literature explores whether the lack of
identified competencies affects YDPs’ motivation to engage in work-based learning
opportunities.
Travis (2010) indicated YDPs are often drawn to the field because their personal beliefs
are aligned with the ethos of the organizations and their approach to positive youth development.
These individuals also often have a genuine interest in the children they serve (Evans et al.,
2010). Studies also show that, when offered specialized training in positive youth development,
youth workers described themselves as more self-competent. This proclamation also led to
longevity in the field (Edwards et al., 2010; Shockley & Thompson, 2012; Thompson &
Shockley, 2013).
This section focuses on the motivational influences that affect youth workers’
engagement in professional learning opportunities that emerged from the literature. The first
influence, utility value, refers to the fact that YDPs need to understand how engaging in work-
based learning session is valuable to their daily practice (Eccles, 2006). The second influence, as
analyzed through goal orientation theory, seeks to identify whether YDPs engage in these
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 37
sessions to appease their own personal learning goals or to excel among their peers and be
positioned for job prospects within the organization or field (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Expectancy value motivational theory: Utility value. Eccles (2006) posited that the
value one attributes to learning is determined by four related constructs: intrinsic value,
attainment value, utility and perceived cost. Intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment one receives
while executing a task while attainment value is characterized by the relationship between one’s
image and the task completed. Individuals measure perceived cost when engaging in any action
to determine whether it is worth the effort (Eccles, 2006).
Utility value is explored for the purposes of this analysis. Utility value is defined by the
value of the task in helping an individual meet a long- or short-term goal (Eccles, 2006).
Research indicates that, while there is significant diversity in the ages of staff members, many
workers enter the field early in their careers and often possess an associate’s or higher degree
(Yohalem et al., 2010). The evidence also highlights that administrators at effective youth
development organizations understand the importance of having skilled YDPs, yet there are
limited educational and professional development opportunities available for their staff. In a
study conducted by Shockley and Thompson (2012), 223 YDPs were recruited to participate in
an educational program on the City University of New York campus. These participants were
targeted to ascertain whether a formal educational program better equipped workers to do their
jobs, progress along the career ladder and persist in the field. Participants reported knowledge
was best applied when relevant to their prior experiences working with youth. Program
participants remained in the field for longer periods and were more likely to be promoted
(Shockley & Thompson, 2012).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 38
Although replicating the measures of this study would be difficult across the entire field,
the findings have relevance to the development of work-based learning opportunities at these
organizations. YDPs who see learning opportunities as a means to strengthening their skill sets
or developing a career trajectory in the youth development space could be more inclined to
actively engage in sequenced and relevant work-based learning opportunities (Shockley &
Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Shockley, 2013).
Goal orientation theory. Rooted in the theoretical framework of Bandura’s social
cognitive theory, goal orientation theory is a component of achievement motivation (Yough &
Anderman, 2006). Yough and Anderman (2006) asserted that goals are created in two different
metrics. One metric addresses mastery goals while the other references performance goals.
Mastery goals are designed to push an individual to thoroughly understand a content area.
Performance goals highlight one's ability, in comparison to the ability of others. Yough and
Anderman (2006) also indicated that mastery and performance goals include another dynamic:
they can be separated into both approach and avoidance goals. Mastery approach goals are
dedicated to true understanding while mastery avoidance goals are focused on circumventing
misunderstanding. Performance approach goals demonstrate that one is meeting an expectation
while performance avoidance goals serve as a defense mechanism that allows individuals to
prevent themselves from seeming incompetent (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
While research has not particularly explored the motivating factors behind YDPs’ goal
orientation in relation to work-based learning participation, these individuals are uniquely
positioned to serve struggling youth (Harris, 2014). Travis (2010) asserted that the attributions
made by YDPs towards youth allow them to be a developmental asset in the lives of the children
they serve. In Travis’ (2010) study, despite issues related to poverty and the lack of resources
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 39
that played a strong role in the lives of their young people, youth workers still classified them as
positive children who exhibited resilience (Travis, 2010). Research also indicated that workers
practicing in communities in crisis specifically wanted to be trained to deliver programs and
services more effectively (Shockley & Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Travis,
2010). Therefore, it appears that YDPs pursue additional learning through the scope of the
mastery approach. Empirical studies have not addressed the role that performance evaluations
play in their rationale or motivation. This could be an important focal point for future research.
As the table below indicates, YDPs’ motivation is influenced by utility value. Further empirical
data is necessary to determine whether they are driven by mastery or performance-based goals.
Table 3
Stakeholder Goal and Motivational Influence and Assessment for Motivation Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations (CYDO) is a non-profit organization whose mission is
to enable young people to reach their full potential as productive, responsible and caring individuals.
Organizational Global Goal
CYDO’s goal is that by 2025, 75% of youth will report having a state of the art program experience
Stakeholder Goal
By January 2025, CYDO will create clear competencies and quality standards for professionals who are
responsible for implementing outcome driven programs. These competencies will be used to influence the
work-based learning opportunities offered by the organization.
Assumed Motivation Influences
(Choose 2)
Motivational Influence Assessment
Utility Value:
Youth development professionals need to understand
the value of participating in work-based learning
opportunities.
In post-session reflection, youth development
professionals will be required to indicate which
professional learning opportunity they wish to
engage in. They should also include how this
opportunity will support their future goals and
aspirations.
Goal Orientation: Youth development professionals
should want to pursue professional learning
opportunities to gain mastery rather than distinguish
themselves from their peers.
In the National Youth Outcomes Survey, youth
development professionals will report on item, “I
want to engage in additional professional
development opportunities in order
to_________________”
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 40
Organization
General theory. Clark and Estes (2008) framed performance problems as an illness that
pervades an organization. Supporting solutions to these problems rests in understanding the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors at play within the framework of the
company (Clark & Estes, 2008). In addressing the problem of limited access to educational and
work-based learning opportunities for YDPs, the prior segment sought to highlight some of the
issues regarding knowledge and motivation that influence this performance gap. This section
explores the organizational influences that affect this problem of practice. It is important to note
that these organizational barriers were analyzed through the scope of CYDO and its local
organizations, but they have applicability to organizations that subscribe to similar leadership,
program quality and staffing models.
Organizational Influences
Although organizations are entities that encompass a number of different components,
Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) asserted that the individuals who are a part of them personify
the culture and climate of these institutions. Organizational culture and climate are
interconnected terms and play themselves out in an organization’s internal and external
operations (Schneider et al., 1996). For the purpose of this study, the term “organizational
culture” refers to the systems, practices, and routines inferred by an organization’s members.
These factors address the organization’s daily operations as well as the goals the group
collectively pursues (Schneider et al., 1996). Organizational culture is characterized by the
values and beliefs that are subscribed to by members of the unit. These cultural tenets are
embedded into the subconscious of individuals and are used to interpret organizational systems,
practices and routines (Schneider et al., 1996). As a mission-driven organization, CYDO is
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 41
classified as a non-profit or public service agency. Burke (2004) asserted that public service
agencies adopt responsibility for their practices through six different demands. Among these is
the expectation that they are mission-driven and mission-oriented organizations whose decisions
should be made based on their call to service (Burke, 2004). Therefore, analysis of the
organizational culture and climate influences on learning opportunities afforded to YDPs is
essential to addressing how CYDO executes its mission.
Studies have found that program quality can be measured by the implementation of
engaging activities and the relationships forged between program staff and participants (Astroth
& Lindstrom, 2008; Little et al., 2008; Weiss et al., 2005; Yohalem et al., 2010). Organizations,
like CYDO, which have existed in the youth development space for over 100 years have sought
to reframe their organizational culture and climate. This culture shift was enacted to reflect the
new levels of accountability in the sector. Senge (1990) posited that organizations that engage in
continuous growth and development adopt both generative and adaptive learning. Generative
learning positions organizations to reflectively create and evolve while adaptive learning creates
a support system around employees, so they can cope with ebbs and flows of change (Senge,
1990). Expanding the educational and work-based learning opportunities for YDPs is a topic that
delves into the both arenas of learning at the organizational level.
Youth Development Professionals as Part-Time Staff
The role of the YDP has been characterized as non-traditional. It often requires that staff
members employ a variety of skills to support participant engagement (Harris, 2014; Travis,
2010). Also, since these programs exist in the out of school time sector, the work includes
irregular hours, inconsistent salary and a lack of career advancement opportunities (Thompson &
Shockley, 2013). Many organizations utilize a staff model that primarily includes part-time
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 42
workers. These individuals work 3 to 4 hours a day and often arrive shortly before the program
participants. This makes it difficult for organizations to offer expanded learning opportunities to
YDPs (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003; Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Thompson &
Shockley, 2013). Full-time employees are limited. Their primary task is to provide coaching and
oversight, but not direct program delivery (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008). YDPs present what
Schein (2004) described as a sub-culture. Subcultures are work-based groups within an
organization. In older organizations, like CYDO, these individuals provide the most insight into
what happens within the community. These workers are bonded by shared experiences within
their roles. The lack of resources attributed to this group may be a larger indicator that their work
is subconsciously disregarded as insignificant (Borden & Perkins, 2006). This creates a
performance gap in the field, particularly when research indicates that YDPs pro-actively seek
opportunities to learn and grow (Shockley & Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Shockley, 2013;
Travis, 2010). Some learning youth development organizations, like CYDO, have begun to
respond to these findings by developing goals regarding training and professional development
for all out of school time professionals.
Over the last decade, CYDO has engaged in a reassessment of the methods and practices
that it utilizes to support program quality. Initially, the organization provided resources to its
local organizations through curricula, resource development and technical assistance. Yet, as the
enterprise began to expand and the accountability for out of school time programs increased, it
became apparent that the national office needed to also create structures for enhancing the human
capital of the Movement (CYDO, 2017). “The Movement” is a term used to describe local
CYDO organizations and the national office as one entity (CYDO, 2017). The Presidential
Leadership University was a created as a response to this need. The university provides
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 43
meaningful and continuous learning opportunities to key stakeholders in the CYDO Movement
through five schools of development: school of youth development, school of management,
school of executive leadership, school of resource development, and school of board leadership.
Through these units, professionals engage in synchronous and asynchronous learning on topics
that are relevant to their roles (CYDO, 2017). The creation of the Presidential Leadership
University exemplifies generative learning within the organization.
Lack of Funding Available for Expanded Learning Opportunities
Despite the influx of funding that has come into the youth development field through
federal initiatives like 21st Century Community Learning Centers, there are limited monetary
resources available for professional learning (Baron, 2015; Yohalem et al., 2010). While
administrators agree that expanded learning opportunities are important to ensuring program
quality, they report feeling uncertain about how to secure a sufficient amount of funds to support
these interventions (Borden & Perkins, 2006). Kezar (2001) asserted that organizations rely
heavily on resources, and initiatives that are not well-funded or supported will inevitably fail.
The inability of the field to move quickly to address the issue of funding may be an intimation
that there is an ideology inherent to the youth development sector that providing educational and
work-based learning opportunities to front-line staff is not a priority (Borden & Perkins, 2006).
Schein (2004) posited that there are three levels of culture: artifacts, espoused beliefs and
values and underlying assumptions. Artifacts are the tangible and visible systems and processes,
and espoused beliefs are the ethos and principles of the organization. The underlying
assumptions are the subconscious beliefs and values adopted by individuals (Schein, 2004). Due
to the historical perceptions of the out of school time field, there may be an assumption in the
macro culture that YDPs do not require the same educational and work-based learning
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 44
opportunities as in-school educators. This is an organizational influence that could lead to
systemic silencing of these workers. Employees may be reluctant to share their thoughts, ideas
and needs (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). YDPs do request additional opportunities to expand
their skills (Desimone et al., 2006; Travis, 2010). If managers believe that the role does not
require additional learning, they may disenfranchise their most essential employees.
Lack of Clearly Defined Competencies and Professional Trajectory
Through its impact formula, CYDO (2017) indicated that, to achieve their priority
outcomes, members must engage in an outcome driven experience (ODE). Components of the
ODE are the five key elements of positive youth development: a safe, positive environment,
supportive relationships, opportunities, expectations, fun, and recognition. Local organizations
are expected to implement these elements in its daily operations (The Search Institute for
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations, 2005). Since YDPs transmit these principles
in their everyday practices, it is important to explore how the lack of clearly defined
competencies serves as an organizational influence.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that, if an organization improves staff members’
knowledge, skills and motivation, they are more inclined to meet their performance and
organizational goals. The Presidential Leadership University positioned CYDO with a medium
to institute this practice. While the learning opportunities are provided and well sequenced, there
is no mandate from the organization that every YDP must engage in these workshops (CYDO,
2017). Therefore, there is inconsistency in the skill-set of these employees across the Movement.
In addition, the learning modules are created based on the impact formula, but they do not align
with a set of universal competencies. This is a direct reflection of the lack of identified
competencies in the scholarship.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 45
Through the analysis of the knowledge and motivational factors that influence this
problem of practice, it was articulated that YDPs are more inclined to participate in expanded
learning opportunities, if it helps them develop skills that can be applied to a future goal or
aspiration (Shockley & Thompson, 2012). Research indicates that there is limited mobility
within the youth development field, since the workforce is primarily comprised of part-time
workers (Yohalem et al., 2010). CYDO is reframing the organizational culture to provide
additional educational and professional learning opportunities. To be successful in this
improvement, it is important that the organization engages in adaptive learning and creates
systems and structures to create a professional trajectory for its workers (Thompson & Shockley,
2013).
There are a number of organizational influences that affect the limited educational and
professional learning opportunities available to YDPs. These factors informed the scope of the
study. They also provided a foundation for the data collection methods utilized. Table 4 displays
these influencers.
Table 4
Assumed Influencers
Assumed Influencers on Performance
Sources
Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
Learning and
Motivation and
Organizational
Theory
Youth development
professionals know the
competencies, skills and
experiences necessary to
be an effective
practitioner.
(Declarative/Factual)
Youth development
professionals understand
the benefits to engaging in
work-based learning in
order to improve their
instructional practices
(Utility Value)
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The youth development field
is mostly comprised on part-
time employees
Cultural Model Influence 2:
There is a lack of funding
dedicated to providing
educational and work-based
learning opportunities for
youth development
professionals
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 46
Table 4, continued
Assumed Influencers on Performance
Sources
Knowledge
Motivation
Organization
Youth development
professionals have a
clearly outlined scope and
sequence of work-based
learning opportunities
(Declarative/ Conceptual)
Youth development
professionals envision a
long-term career in the
youth development field
(Goal Orientation Theory)
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
There is no clear professional
trajectory for youth
development professionals,
so they are less inclined to
participate in additional
learning opportunities
without monetary
compensation
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
There is a lack of clearly
identified competencies for
youth development
professionals
Conceptual Framework: Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Context
Maxwell (2013) asserted that the conceptual framework is designed to identify the
theories and concepts supporting the study. Additionally, this framework describes the
relationship between these variables. The prior segments of this analysis explored the
knowledge, motivational and organizational influencers that affect access to educational and
work-based learning opportunities. Although each of these factors was addressed separately, it is
important to note that they are interconnected and symbiotically influence each other. Travis
(2010) indicated that the out of school time sector is a unique context with specific cultural
models and settings that impact YDPs’ systems and practices. The individuals who fill this role
are charged with creating an environment that is enriching and engaging for young people. Yet,
due to limited funding, inconsistent hours, high turnover rates and a lack of shared competencies
in the field, they are not equipped with the tools to be successful (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008;
Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Yohalem et al., 2010).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 47
The conceptual framework below demonstrates the role that CYDO plays as the
organization that employs YDPs. The systems and policies that govern this body have an effect
on how these workers perceive and internalize their responsibilities around program planning
and execution (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Yohalem et al., 2010).
This conceptual framework also outlines how altering the knowledge and motivation of these
workers can yield stronger program quality, and additional funding for their continuous
development (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008).
Figure 2: The interaction of stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
context.
The CYDO embodies many of the cultural models in the out of school time field. As
programs that occur outside of the traditional school day, their curricula and activities are
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 48
delivered primarily by part-time workers ranging broadly in both age and education (Borden &
Perkins, 2006). Although this group is diverse, research indicates that individuals are often
drawn to the work because of a core belief in the mission (Evans et al., 2010; Yohalem et al.,
2010). Yet, mission alignment does not necessarily equate to an individual having the skills
necessary to deliver high-yield activities. This reality makes the case for the importance of
additional learning opportunities being offered consistently to these staff members (Yohalem et
al., 2010).
Since it has only been a decade since the increase in the accountability for out of school
time programs, the competencies for this role are not clearly articulated or shared across
organizations (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Borden & Perkins, 2006; Evans et al., 2010; Johnson
et al., 2004). Johnson and colleagues (2004) proposed that this gives each company the latitude
to offer professional development sessions aligned with their own perceptions of quality practice,
which may or may not be well informed. In some instances, leaders may interpret the lack of
competencies as a reflection of the value of the role and, in turn, be reluctant to specifically
fundraise for these opportunities (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008). This could also be an indication
of why funders are less inclined to invest directly in additional educational and work-based
learning opportunities for YDPs (Borden & Perkins, 2006). As indicated in Figure 2 above, this
organizational culture directly affects the knowledge and motivation of the YDPs, which could
inadvertently stifle program delivery (Borden & Perkins, 2006; Johnson et al., 2004).
Youth development professionals are positioned as the primary anchors of program
quality (Borden & Perkins, 2006), yet they function in a setting that does not offer clearly
outlined goals and expectations for service (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Borden & Perkins,
2006; Evans et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2004), which potentially hinders their motivation. Travis
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 49
(2010) suggested that, since YDPs work irregular hours, there is irregularity in when educational
and work-based learning opportunities are offered. This mitigates the ideal of organizations’
continuous improvement (Travis, 2010). Shockley and Thompson (2012) found that YDPs enter
the field feeling ill equipped to handle the parameters of the job. They rely on their respective
organizations to broaden their skill sets and provide opportunities for gaining additional tools
(Shockley & Thompson, 2012). Individuals who do not benefit from these opportunities may
feel disenfranchised from the work and not foresee a future at an organization like CYDO
(Shockley & Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Shockley, 2013). Without sufficient funding to
support ongoing learning opportunities, employers rely on intrinsic motivation to drive their
workers to attend training or engage in continuing education classes. Thompson and Shockley
(2013) assumed that, even if this is a fair expectation, it should not be the only factor driving
YDPs. Unfortunately, only a highly self-driven individual can be sustained in this type of
environment, hence the high staff turnover rate in the sector (The Annie E. Casey Foundation,
2003; Thompson & Shockley, 2013).
In exploring the knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that affect YDPs’
access to educational and work-based learning opportunities, one has the chance to ideate on
what could alter these individuals’ outcomes. One solution could be positioning expanded
educational and work-based learning opportunities as integral to increasing program quality. This
changes the discourse on how the YDP role is presented internally and externally. These workers
then become skilled workers, and their experience will eventually reflect that classification
(Stone et al., 2005).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study explored the barriers to YDPs’ access to educational and professional learning
opportunities. The first two chapters examine the literature outlining the historical timeline of the
out of school time sector and afterschool programs in the United States. This examination also
highlighted some of the reasons for a dearth of opportunities for these workers. This chapter
explores the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors that affect professional learning
in the youth development field.
Research Questions
1. To what extent is the leadership development department of Consortium of Youth
Development Organizations (CYDO) meeting its goal of providing educational and
work-based learning resources to youth development professionals?
2. What are the knowledge, motivation and organizational elements related to achieving the
organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for the improvement of organizational practices in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population for this study is the youth development professional. CYDO
classifies these individuals as core front-line staff. They are responsible for maintaining the
safety of members as well as program planning and execution in their respective sites (CYDO,
2017). Borden and Perkins (2006) highlighted that youth development work is the primary
occupation for those who serve in this role. Researchers have also found significant diversity in
age, gender, education, and professional backgrounds among these individuals (Evans et al.,
2010; Yohalem et al., 2010). At CYDO’s local entities, a majority of these workers are
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 51
employed on a part-time basis and traditionally work 3 to 5 hours per day. Full-time
administrators oversee the organizations’ operational practices. They consistently receive
coaching, guidance, technical support and funding from CYDO (The Search Institute for
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations, 2005).
Youth development professionals, local organization leadership and CYDO staff
members who participated in this study were selected through purposeful sampling. This
sampling practice is designed to support the researcher in selecting participants who are
representative of the average individual in the targeted group (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each
year, CYDO member organizations participate in a national survey. YDPs, central and executive
leadership, volunteers and board members complete a survey developed by CYDO. Survey
questions explore their experience working at the local organization, including the operational
systems and practices of their respective organization and work-based learning opportunities
provided to all employees and volunteers. Due to measures of convenience, the researcher
utilized the responses of YDPs as a quantitative method in this study.
Quantitative Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participants are youth development professionals employed over six months
by a local CYDO organization.
Criterion 2. Participants completed the 2017 National Youth Outcomes Initiative
Survey.
Criterion 3. Surveys from participants who did not complete the entire survey or
questions one through six, which indicate demographic and role specific information, were
removed from the analysis sample.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 52
Quantitative Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Although all staff members in CYDO local organizations complete the survey, only
YDPs’ responses were analyzed for the study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described this as
convenience sampling based on the availability of the information. Due to the size of the CYDO
enterprise and the federated model that the organization subscribes to, it would have been
difficult to randomly sample the entire youth development population. The entire population,
which was 11,754 individuals was included (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Survey results were
collected prior to the beginning of the study.
Qualitative Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Interviewees have served as a YDP in an out-of-school organization for six
months or more.
Criterion 2. Interviewees currently serve in a role at CYDO that is directly or indirectly
responsible for launching or implementing the continuous quality improvement measures at the
organization.
Criterion 3. All leadership in the organization were alerted via personal conversation,
written letter and email before potential interviewees were contacted.
Qualitative Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Interviewees were recruited based on purposeful convenience sampling. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) posited that purposeful sampling enables the researcher to select a group that they
anticipate will provide the most insight into the topic. CYDO is currently engaging in a strategic
plan that targets capacity building for managers who support YDPs. There are three departments
charged with addressing this issue. Therefore, participants were selected from this group.
Maximum variation sampling allows the researcher to select participants who hold a wide range
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 53
of perspectives and potential responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). CYDO has three
departments engaged who have different focal points. They approach the topic from the
perspective of outcomes measurement, program support and leadership development. Through
the sampling process, interviewees were selected from each department.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized the explanatory sequential design method. This mixed-methods
approach allows the researcher to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative
data was collected through surveys and subsequently analyzed. Then, qualitative measures like
interviews were evaluated to provide deeper study of the initial findings (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Although quantitative and qualitative analyses have different purposes, they yield
complementary results. Quantitative research seeks to draw comparisons through the statistical
relationships between multiple variables (Maxwell, 2013). Due to the size of CYDO, there are a
variety of contexts in which YDPs function. The demographics of the community and young
people served vary from organization to organization. The operating budgets and administrative
structures of each local entity also vary across the enterprise. However, there are still some
consistent strands in program delivery and expectations across the network. As a federated
model, CYDO also provides a structural framework for the institution. Therefore, administering
and analyzing survey results allows the researcher to compare the experience of YDPs across
multiple variables like experience, role and length of service (Maxwell, 2013).
Qualitative analysis provides the researcher with the opportunity to gauge the meaning
behind the context of the participants and the environment in which the study was conducted.
This level of analysis is significant because it is process oriented and designed to unearth
influencers or factors that have not been accounted for in the research design (Maxwell, 2013).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 54
Qualitative analysis may also offer some insight into the application of findings from the study.
This method is applicable for the research questions that address the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors of YDPs and the areas for improvement. Responses delivered via
interviews broaden the context of the study and impart the perspectives of individuals who are
active players in the environment. The configuration of both quantitative and qualitative methods
provides the researcher with a holistic analysis of the aforementioned research questions.
Surveys
As part of their continuous improvement model, CYDO administers a national survey to
all local organizations annually. Participation is voluntary, but consenting organizations are
required to distribute the tools to executive leadership, board members, staff members and
program participants aged 8 to 18. The survey is administered through an online portal or hard
copy. The link or paper surveys are distributed to local organizations at the end of November,
and submissions are due by the close of March. These survey results are analyzed using SPSS.
Although the researcher did not create the tool, it is one that has been tested for validity
and reliability. Measurement instruments are reliable when they are designed to collect the same
scope of data during every administration as long as the conditions are consistent. This requires
alignment between the questions being asked and the implications of the responses that the
instrument yields. This alignment is a classification of validity (Salkind, 2017). CYDO’s
outcomes and measurement department led the development of the tool. They worked closely
with researchers to define the organization’s impact areas and measurable outcomes to then
create survey items that can be analyzed to assess these deliverables. The annual survey is in its
fifth year of administration. Results have been analyzed using the same process each year. The
survey items are reviewed each year for clarity and appropriateness. The responses serve as the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 55
foundation for all strategic planning facilitated by CYDO. The organization agreed to share
aggregated survey results with the researcher. The researcher signed a data-sharing contract with
CYDO, since they were formally employed by the organization. This ensures that the examiner
is unable to decipher the participants based on demographic information. The researcher
received 11,754 survey results, and 5,587 of those were from YDPs.
Interviews
Four one-time interviews were conducted with participants from CYDO’s strategic
leadership and training departments. This sample is distinctly different from the surveys
completed by youth workers from local organizations. All interviews were completed with
employees from the national office. CYDO has identified program directors’ capacity building as
a priority area in its upcoming 7-year strategic plan. Three departments are charged with
developing learning opportunities that expand the professional development of staff members at
all levels. Individuals from each department were interviewed. Permission was garnered from
the supervisor of each individual selected for these formal interviews. Kvale and Brinkmann
(2015) asserted that interviews need to have a clearly defined framework and serve a particular
purpose. The goal of these conversations was to gain a deeper understanding of the rationale
behind current systems and practices provided by CYDO. Interviewees were guided through this
conversation using semi-structured questions. Semi-structured items are those that do not have a
predesigned sequence or order. They are used to retrieve participant centered responses
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were recorded and then subsequently transcribed and
coded. Coding relates to the process of highlighting key themes or topics that emerge during the
interview (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This is the best approach given the fact
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 56
that each department has a different lens to the work as well as different expectations around
how they will support the completion of the strategic goal.
Quantitative Analysis
The researcher calculated frequencies. For stakeholder groups of fewer than 20, the
percentage of stakeholders who strongly agreed or agreed with survey statements are shown in
relation to those who strongly disagreed or disagreed. For larger stakeholder groups, means and
standards deviation were used to identify average levels of responses.
Survey responses were provided to the researcher in a spreadsheet. The examiner
developed a codebook to explain how data were cleaned, realigned the information to correspond
with the designated codes, and conducted descriptive statistical analysis like measures of central
tendency and variability on the information. The appropriate graphs and tables were used to
visually represent the aforementioned measures. As part of the analysis, the researcher explored
the relationship between the variables and compared groups. The examiner conducted
comparisons using demographic information like age, gender, education and years of service.
Qualitative Analysis
For interviews, data analysis began during data collection. The researcher wrote analytic
memos after each interview. Thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in
relation to the conceptual framework and research questions were recorded in the memos. Once
completed, the evaluator transcribed and coded the interviews. Open coding was used in the first
phase of analysis to identify empirical codes and apply a priori codes from the conceptual
framework. Empirical and priori codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes during the
second phase of analysis. In the third phase of data analysis, the examiner identified pattern
codes and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 57
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Constructing a research design that promotes valid, ethical and reliable results is the
foremost priority of the researcher. As scholars embark on a study, they are charged with
ensuring that each component of data analysis and collection is explicitly outlined and will yield
results that are applicable to the intended field of practice (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This exercise builds credibility and trustworthiness in the researcher and the findings.
Creswell (2014) asserted that qualitative research achieves validity and reliability through
calculated steps in the research process. Validity implies that the researcher used collection
methods that uphold the accuracy of the results while reliability ensures that the research design
is applicable across different contexts and fields of study (Gibbs, 2007). In qualitative research,
the aforementioned terms are used synonymously with credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell,
2014). For the purposes of this study, when referencing issues of validity and reliability in the
qualitative methods, the terms credibility and trustworthiness are employed.
The study utilized a mixed-methods approach; therefore, it is important that qualitative
credibility and trustworthiness are established through triangulation. Triangulation is the process
of using more than one data collection method to ensure that the findings cannot be attributed to
any one resource or a perceived flaw in the researcher’s perspective or collection strategy
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Qualitative Methods
Strategies like respondent validation, triangulation, and utilizing quantitative analysis can
mitigate threats to credibility and trustworthiness (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013) described
respondent validation as the process of garnering feedback on the data and findings from
participants. It is important to note that the insights of the respondents are influenced by their
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 58
personal worldview and respective realities, but their validation of the scholar’s account of their
thoughts and ideas has value in terms of solidifying the researcher’s credibility.
As part of the design of this study, interviews were conducted with national staff
members of CYDO who are responsible for leading the training and work-based learning
initiatives for YDPs. Their supervisors granted approval prior to the interviews. Since the group
is small, there was not random sampling. All individuals involved in the aforementioned projects
received an invitation to be interviewed via email. Once the interviews were transcribed and
coded, they were shared with the respondents for their feedback.
Quantitative Methods
CYDO conducts an annual national survey of YDPs. Survey items include questions
regarding roles and responsibilities, organization tenure and educational and work-based learning
opportunities. An analysis of the applicable survey items was made before interviews were
conducted. Key questions asked were influenced by the survey findings. These questions are
clearly distinguished in the analysis. This represents triangulation of the collection process,
since there was a variety of methods utilized (Maxwell, 2013).
Validity and Reliability
Creswell (2014) suggested that, in an empirical study, validity threats can affect the
researcher’s ability to prove that findings are due to the outcomes of the study and not to external
factors. Researchers must be vigilant in the design process to prevent threats to internal validity.
Internal validity threats appear in the “experimental procedures, treatments, or experiences of the
participants” (Creswell, 2014, p.174). Since the CYDO national survey was administered prior to
the beginning of the study, the use of the tool prevents internal validity threats related to sample
selection. The sampling methods for the survey are clearly described in the analysis portions of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 59
the report. Concerns about instrumentation, which refer to changes in the instrument between
collections, can be addressed through comparing the survey distributed in the year prior to the
year from which results were analyzed. Any changes or adjustments are included in the analysis
with a fluid description of the potential threat diverted (Creswell, 2014).
Researchers who engage in quantitative analysis must also be conscious of threats to
external validity. These are defined by instances where the researcher draws incorrect
conclusions from the findings and applies them to similar groups, environments and contexts
(Creswell, 2014). Due to interaction of selection and treatment, findings from this study are
applicable to YDPs who work within CYDO organizations. This does not prevent similar
organizations from referencing the results, but the researcher intentionally crafted the findings
and made suggestions for improvements at CYDO.
Ethics
Although CYDO is a non-profit organization that serves youth, the human subjects
participating in this study were 18 years of age and older. Permission to conduct this study was
obtained from CYDO prior to distributing any request for consent or conducting data collection
and analysis. This mixed-methods study utilizes both surveys and interviews to collect
information. Through the National Youth Outcomes Initiative, CYDO surveys approximately
5,000 YDPs from across their partner organizations. Results from the survey were analyzed in
this study. The data shared with the researcher was in an aggregated format.
Information that may have indicated the identity of individuals or the organization were
removed or changed to protect the participants and their affiliates. The final results and
dissertation will be shared with CYDO leadership. There are no additional safeguards necessary
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 60
to protect the identity of respondents to the survey because the data were aggregated.
Pseudonyms were used when reporting interview responses.
The researcher was an employee of CYDO and served in an extended leadership role in
the program development team. This entity oversees all curricula and program development as
well as training and coaching for local organizations. While the findings of this study will
enhance the work of the researcher, they will not cause significant organizational unrest or
concern. There is a clear distinction between CYDO and the local organizations that it serves.
The researcher is currently employed in an executive leadership role at a local organization. As
part of a federated model, decisions or recommendations offered by the national network cannot
be mandated across the local organizations. They must either be accepted or incorporated by the
executive leadership or voted on and adopted by the greater body. The researcher has no power
over the survey participants and cannot force their participation. This concept is widely
understood by the sample population. Interviews were conducted with peers to the researcher or
senior leaders in other departments. As there is no power differential in these relationships,
responses or participation cannot be coerced. The examiner has strong relationships with many
of the interviewees from the prior role at the national office. Interviewees may have been
inclined to help or support the researcher by participating in the study. This reality was
acknowledged prior to interviews being conducted. Participants were reminded of the importance
of their candor in the interview process prior to questions being asked. The researcher has a
close relationship to the CYDO Movement as both a staff member at a local organization and a
former employee at the national office. Prior to the beginning of the study, the investigator
transitioned to a different role within a local organization. Permission to continue with the study
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 61
as outlined was granted. Therefore, the researcher signed a shared data agreement with the
national office.
There are some inherent biases of the investigator that may have influenced the study.
The researcher has over a decade of experience in the youth development space as a YDP,
administrator, and national staff member. The investigator also believes that their longevity in
the field is primarily due to the training and support received when serving as a YDP. This
positions the researcher as an advocate for the subjects of this study. The letter distributed to
participants requesting their participation outlined that their responses would be kept confidential
and would be aggregated when represented in the analysis. It also described the connection that
the researcher has to the organization and the topic. The researcher shared transcripts of the
interviews conducted with the interviewees. These strategies will hopefully mitigate researcher
bias (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations and delimitations to this study. A limitation of the study is that data
were collected from a convenience sample. The researcher did not have the ability to survey or
interview a diverse group of youth development organizations. This choice was made to ensure
the timely collection of data. This may affect the applicability of findings to contexts different
from CYDO. An identified delimitation is that the researcher was not be able decipher the
truthfulness of responses received from survey respondents and interviews. The model of CYDO
is unique to larger youth development organizations that subscribe to a federated model. There is
no uniformity across local organizations within the network. The conditions for the
dissemination of the survey could not and were not observed by the investigator. In addition,
there were time limitations to the data collection period. The researcher had limited to no
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 62
involvement in the creation of the National Youth Outcomes Survey. Consequently, the
questions could not be edited or adjusted prior to dissemination.
Conclusion
This study explored limited educational and work-based learning opportunities available
to YDPs. The methodology detailed in this section was followed diligently to ensure that no
harm was done to participants and that the findings have relevance to CYDO and the greater out
of school time sector.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 63
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with establishing educational and
professional learning opportunities for YDPs. Specifically, the study sought to examine the
following as expressed in the research questions: (1) the extent to which CYDO’s strategic
leadership is meeting its goal of providing high-quality educational and work-based learning
resources; (2) the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to CYDO
successfully achieving its goals; and (3) recommendations for improving organizational practices
and influences for YDPs.
This chapter examines the educational and work-based learning opportunities available to
YDPs within CYDO as determined through the analysis of the 2017 National Youth Outcomes
Initiative Survey of CYDO member organizations and targeted interviews with CYDO leaders.
It also examines assumed influencers of knowledge, motivation, and organization and their
factual, conceptual, and procedural causes (Clark & Estes, 2008) through participants’ responses.
Although YDPs, central and executive leadership, board and staff members and volunteers
completed the survey, only YDPs’ responses were analyzed. These were respondents who
indicated on the survey that the title of “youth development professional” most closely described
their current role.
This chapter first provides an overview of the national survey and the quantitative
analysis methods used on the survey data. A general profile or picture of the typical YDP is
developed from the survey and presented to offer an overall understanding or picture of work
experiences, work-based learning opportunities and staff at affiliates. After the profile or overall
picture follow overall and comparative findings and results organized by the assumed
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 64
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influencers. Survey and interview findings and
results are integrated into each influencer section. A synthesis of these results ends the chapter.
Survey Overview
The survey explored respondents’ experiences working at the local organization or
affiliate including the operational systems, practices and work-based learning opportunities
provided to all employees and volunteers. It contained 32 questions with 13 questions having
anywhere from two to 10 subparts. Sixteen questions and their subparts contained five-point
Likert-type scale responses on various attributes such as satisfaction, agreement, amount of staff,
confidence, benefit, and frequency of event. For example, for satisfaction, the five points of the
Likert-type scale were the following: 1 = not at all satisfied, 2 = slightly satisfied, 3 = moderately
satisfied, 4 = very satisfied, 5 = completely satisfied. All scales were positively-worded,
meaning high agreement with the item represented a high level of the attribute being measured.
Ten questions asked demographic information such as age, gender, race, education level,
years of experience serving youth, length of service at the specific site/affiliate, work status, and
former site/affiliate membership. With original and additional coding across the questions and
question subparts, over 140 variables were created, of which 130 were included for analysis.
The survey data were analyzed overall and then specifically with regards to YDPs in general and
across the aforementioned demographic variables for comparisons with regards to the assumed
influences on performance: knowledge, motivation, and organization. The survey is included in
Appendix A.
Exploratory and Comparative Data Analysis
The 2017 National Youth Outcomes Initiative Survey dataset totaled 11,754 respondents.
After removing cases with missing data for the aforementioned demographic questions, 11,667
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 65
(99.3%) cases remained. Of those cases, 5,587 (47.9%) comprised the YDP sample on which the
following analyses were based. First, exploratory data analysis was conducted on the YDP
sample to look for and address any data coding or data entry errors, to identify outliers and to
check whether statistical test assumptions (e.g., independence of observations, normality of data
distribution) were met (Fink, 2003b; Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2008). The researcher computed
descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, median, mode, standard deviation, skewness). In addition to
these computations, histograms and boxplots were created to understand how the data were
distributed for each variable (Fink, 2003b; Leech et al., 2008).
Some of the variables (e.g., numerical scale scores, summated subscales, some Likert-
type scale scores) approximated normal distributions for which the mean and standard deviation
were used to describe the data while others (e.g., some Likert-type scale scores) indicated non-
normal distributions for which the median and mode were used (Leech et al., 2008). The median
gave understanding of the typical response or attribute for those variables while the mode gave
understanding of the prevailing response or attribute for those variables (Fink, 2003b).
For comparative analyses of survey items, the independent t-test, paired t-test, and
ANOVA were used when the data of the dependent variables approximated a normal
distribution. However, when the assumption of normality was markedly violated, or the
dependent variable was ordinal, similar nonparametric tests were used: the Mann-Whitney U
test, in place of the independent t-test, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, in place of the paired t-
test, and the Kruskal-Wallis Test, in place of ANOVA (Leech et al., 2008). If the dependent
variable was nominal or dichotomous, the Chi-Square test was used. For correlational analyses
on normally distributed variables, Pearson product moment correlation (r) was used, otherwise
Spearman rho (rs) was used (Leech et al., 2008). If both variables were nominal or dichotomous,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 66
then Phi or Cramer’s V was used (Leech et al., 2008). Since the numbers of participants from
some race/ethnicity groups were small in comparison to others, only YDPs who indicated
Black/African American, White, Two or More Races, and Latino were included in the analyses.
CYDO Profile for YDPs and Affiliates
Although every CYDO affiliate offers both similar and unique experiences to staff and
youth members across the organization, what is presented below is a profile of a typical YDP
and then a general picture of CYDO affiliates overall based on the descriptive statistics (e.g.,
frequencies, mean, median, mode) for all survey questions and question subparts across the YDP
sample. Specific demographic information and profiles are included in Appendix C.
The youth development professional. The typical YDP at CYDO is a White woman
between 18 and 29 years old and currently in college. She works part-time between 15 and 29
hours per week at her site, which is likely in suburban (36.6%) or urban (36.0%) locations in the
Midwest. She has worked there for less than a year and has 3 to 4 years of experience directly
serving youth in a professional capacity (e.g., youth development staff, afterschool program
staff, teaching, and social work). Although she most likely is not a former CYDO affiliate
member, she personally identifies moderately well to very well (M=3.3, SD=1.02) with the
experiences of the youth at her affiliate. Overall, she is almost very satisfied (M=3.9, SD=0.86)
with her current position and very satisfied with her interpersonal relationships with colleagues
(M=4.0, SD=0.91) and superiors (M=3.9, SD=1.00), but more so with youth (M=4.3, SD=0.71).
She is more satisfied with job security (M=4.0, SD=0.95) at her affiliate site than with
job recognition like receiving praise from superiors for hard work (M=3.7, SD=1.16) and job
training (M=3.6, SD=1.08). She is even less satisfied (M=3.3, SD=1.16) with the career
advancement opportunities at her affiliate. Of the seven types of training mentioned on the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 67
survey, she is more likely to have received the following three and found them moderately
beneficial to very beneficial: orientation or onboarding for new staff (M=3.8, SD=1.01), peer
observation of her conducting program activities and providing her with coaching (M=4.1,
SD=0.81), and supervisor observation of her conducting program activities and providing her
with coaching (M=4.2, SD=0.79). She is less likely to have received regular meetings with her
supervisor to discuss progress towards her annual professional development plan (47%), online
computer-based sessions (46%), formal classroom training (46%), or annual professional
development planning with her direct supervisor for advancement, career building, or skill
upgrading (30%).
She takes less than one hour of paid time per week to plan and prepare for programs and
activities for the youth. She is more than likely to work with age groups 6 to 9 (90%) and 10 to
12 (88%), and she is very confident to extremely confident in her ability to design and
implement developmentally appropriate programs and activities for the 6- to 9-year-olds (M=4.4,
SD=0.77) and the 10- to 12-year-olds (M=4.3, SD=0.81). She is less likely to work with age
groups 13 to 15 (59%) and 16 to 18 (45%) and is less confident designing and implementing
programs for 13- to 15-year-olds (M=3.9, SD=1.04) and even less so for 16- to 18-year-olds
(M=3.5, SD=1.22).
The CYDO affiliate. The typical CYDO affiliate is situated in an urban location. YDPs
at the typical CYDO organization strongly agree (60.2%) and agree (30.4%) that their site has
the potential to have a life-changing, beneficial impact on young people. They also agree
(41.4%), however not as strongly (33.4%), that senior managers and employees at CYDO share a
common vision of what the organization should accomplish. Their site has a staff-to-member
ratio of one staff to between 11 and 15 youth (followed by a youth ratio between 16 and 20).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 68
Staff meetings provide opportunities to support colleagues in their program planning and
delivery efforts. Table 5 presents percentages of YDPs who indicated that the meeting activities
occurred often or always. At their meetings, they raise questions and issues for group discussion,
and discuss safety concerns and risks at their meetings with the most frequency. Professional
development activities occur much less frequently at staff meetings.
Table 5
Percentage of YDPs Indicating “Often” or “Always” Occurrence of Meeting Activities
Assumed Cause
(sorted by “Always”)
Q27. How frequently do the following occur at staff meetings? Results
Always Often
e. Raising questions or issues for discussion with the group 46.7% 33.1%
g. Discussing safety concerns and risks that could impact
members
42.1% 36.1%
b. Planning programs and activities 38.5% 35.0%
d. Addressing needs of individual affiliate members 37.0% 36.7%
a. Setting and reviewing progress on program goals 35.1% 36.9%
c. Evaluating program/activity effectiveness 34.8% 36.7%
f. Professional development activities 29.7% 32.1%
Staff involvement of parents and teachers. Staff involve parents and teachers in
various ways. Regarding parents, YDPs at the typical CYDO affiliate agree (46.1%) and
strongly agree (29.9%) that staff regularly reach out to parents to communicate about program
activities. They also agree (44.3%), but less strongly (22.8%), that staff are knowledgeable
about community services that may benefit affiliate members and thus provide information
about/referrals to these services to family members as needed. Although 25.2% are undecided
(i.e., neither agree nor disagree) that parents and staff regularly meet face-to-face to discuss their
child’s development, 38.4% agree that this interaction occurs. However, one-third is undecided
on whether parents take an active role in program activities while 29.1% agree that they do.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 69
Regarding teacher involvement, these YDPs tend to agree to the following attributes about their
affiliate. “Strongly agree” and “agree” are indicated respectively below in parentheses:
• Teachers keep their affiliate well informed about issues faced by affiliate members during
the school day (18.5%, 34.8%),
• Their affiliate facilitates meetings between school staff, parents, youth members, and/or
affiliate staff, as appropriate (21.2%, 41.2%), and,
• Their affiliate works with school staff to create shared learning opportunities and
activities (21.3%, 36.6%).
High expectations of staff for affiliate members. Most staff members at the typical
CYDO affiliate set high expectations for their staff and communicate positive reinforcement for
children and youth’s efforts as well. Their efforts are illustrated in the frequency and types of
activities in which they engage the youth. Over the previous 60 days, 50.9% of the YDPs
indicated that all or most of each day was scheduled with planned activities and programs for the
members, followed by 32.6% indicating that one or two pick-up games or unplanned activities
occurred once or twice per day. They strongly agree (42.1%) or agree (44.2%) that their affiliate
offers daily vigorous physical activities to all its members, and rules for youth are stated in a way
that clearly describes and encourages desirable behaviors (41.6%, 46.0% respectively).
Academic enrichment and support at their site are a strong suit as they strongly agree (61.3%)
and agree (31.1%) that the program provides homework help to every regularly attending
member. A difference emerges with staff involving youth outside of the affiliate location.
Fewer YDPs strongly agree (20.2%) and agree (37.5%) that their site gets youth involved in off-
site community service projects.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 70
Program delivery. Regarding program delivery, the majority of YDPs believed that all
or most staff, respectively, do the following well at their site: effectively manage conflicts among
youth (46.2%, 36.8%), effectively develop and facilitate high-yield activities (43.8%, 37.6%)
(e.g., “fun with a purpose”) and effectively provide informal guidance to youth (51.1%, 36.1%).
Appendix A presents CYDO’s definitions of high-yield activities and informal guidance. For the
remaining delivery aspects, they believe that all or most, respectively, do them well: facilitate
positive, supportive peer-to-peer relationships among youth (49.0%, 37.3%), work well with
other staff members at their affiliate (54.6, 32.6%), and make sure youth have fun in their
program area every day (47.2%, 37.5%). All or most staff members at the affiliate regularly
accept and respect different cultural backgrounds, customs, traditions, values, and ways of
communicating (65.9%, 25.6%) as well as support youth’s exploration of their own cultural
identities (54.1%, 29.5%).
Staff care about affiliate members. Most staff at the typical CYDO affiliate establish
caring relationships with the youth. They strongly agree or agree, respectively, to the following:
staff know youth's special interests and who their friends and family members are (32.5%,
50.2%); know what is going on in youth's lives, neighborhoods and schools (26.3%, 48.7%);
model, demonstrate and teach positive values (43.8%, 47.3%); and identify and respond to
individual differences in personalities, temperaments, development, and learning styles (34.2%,
52.1%). Nearly all (95.9%) of the YDPs strongly agree or agree that the staff know the names of
most regularly attending members with whom they directly work.
Staff exhibit positive behavior management. The majority of YDPs strongly agree or
agree that most staff exhibit positive behavior management. They strongly agree (36.0%) or
agree (51.7%) that staff manage young people's behavior in ways that promote trusting and
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 71
respectful relationships between youth and staff. They also strongly agree (37.9%) or agree
(51.1%) that staff guide children and youth in appropriately expressing their feelings and
asserting themselves in positive ways. They strongly agree (28.4%) or agree (45.6%) that staff
invite youth to help develop the rules for behavior and hold youth responsible for their behavior
in a fair and consistent manner (37.9%, 46.6%).
Staff involve and empower youth. In addition to helping youth to positively manage
their behavior, YDPs at the typical CYDO organization believe that their colleagues also involve
and empower their youth. They strongly agree or agree, respectively, that staff allow youth to
play an active role in selecting activities and programs (29.4%, 44.7%), support and encourage
youth-led activities (33.0%, 45.4%), and encourage youth to take ownership of the program
space 33.7%, 41.9%). There is less agreement that staff consult a youth-led leadership group or
similar youth committee that provides input to staff regarding programming (20.7%, 32.4%).
There is even less agreement that staff facilitate opportunities for youth to be involved in staff
hiring decisions (19.4%, 23.0%).
Safety practices and communications. YDPs at the typical CYDO affiliate discuss
safety concerns with staff and with youth, letting the youth know that safety is most important at
their site. Staff training sessions are used to make safety a priority while encouraging youth to
talk to staff about safety risks. Teaching youth about ways to stay safe is important at the site to
the staff and the leadership. Across all safety items listed in the survey, YDPs agreed to strongly
agreed (M =4.2, SD=0.61) which indicates that communications and practices around safety are
as important to the staff at the typical affiliate as youth safety is most important to staff and
leadership. Youth know that their safety is very important to the YDPs and organization
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 72
leadership. Table 6 presents percentages of YDPs who strongly agree or agree with each safety
item.
Table 6
Percentage of YDPs to “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” to Each Safety Item
Assumed Cause
(sorted by “Strongly Agree”)
Q28. How much do you agree or disagree with the following
statements?
Results
Strongly
Agree
Agree
j. Youth safety is very important to site leadership. 60.9% 34.8%
h. Teaching youth about ways to stay safe is an important part
of staff's job.
54.4% 39.6%
c. Our site lets youth know that their safety is most important. 53.7% 39.6%
i. Youth know that something would be done if they told
someone at the site about a safety risk.
49.7% 41.7%
d. Site trainings encourage staff to make safety a high priority
(or one of the most important things we do) every day.
46.8% 42.1%
f. Our site has done a good job communicating youth safety
rules and procedures.
46.3% 42.2%
e. Our site uses past risks and mistakes to create a safer setting
for youth.
45.3% 44.0%
g. Youth talk with site staff when safety risks come up. 41.1% 46.6%
a. Staff talk a lot with youth about safety risks. 40.3% 44.4%
b. Our supervisor tries to get staff to talk about youth safety. 40.3% 42.7%
Organizational Influencers on Performance
The profile above provided a picture of a typical CYDO organization through the
descriptive statistics for all survey questions and question subparts across the YDP sample. It is
understood that not all CYDO locations are the same and that differences exist across practices
and demographics. What follows is a closer look at CYDO and the assumed organizational
influencers of knowledge, motivation, and organization and their factual, conceptual, and
procedural causes (Clark & Estes, 2008) as found through the survey responses and the interview
transcript data. Specifically, the survey questions that related to knowledge, motivation, and
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 73
organization are explored within the sample of 5,587 YDPs in general and across demographic
variables. Not all questions related to the influencers.
The researcher interviewed four members of the CYDO team. Each individual serves in a
role that directly influences the development and implementation of learning opportunities
offered to YDPs at CYDO affiliates. Interviewee A has been connected to the CYDO enterprise
for over 10 years and has served in a variety of roles. This interviewee has been involved in a
number of educational and professional learning opportunities that have enhanced their
perspective on training YDPs. Some of these experiences were initiated by their place of
employment while others were self-selected.
Interviewee B has been employed by CYDO for fewer than 10 years and served in the
same role with different focal points at various junctures in their career. This participant has
experience in both the for-profit and not-for-profit industries but is most aligned with the ethos
of not-for-profit organizations. Interviewee B has engaged in diverse learning opportunities
designed to strengthen and expand their professional skill sets. This interviewee characterized
themselves as an avid reader who values research methodologies and practices.
Interviewee C has been associated with the CYDO collaborative for over 10 years,
serving in a variety of leadership roles. This participant is self-described as an avid learner and
has pursued additional learning opportunities and graduate studies. Interviewee C can be
characterized as a self-starter and has initiated many of the educational and work-based learning
opportunities that have supported their professional growth and promotion.
Interviewee D has been linked with the CYDO enterprise for over 10 years, serving in a
variety of roles with varying levels of responsibility. This respondent has had professional
experiences in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. Although a majority of their career
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 74
has been focused in the youth development field, Interviewee D has been privy to work-based
learning opportunities mandated by work as well as those that were self-initiated. This
respondent values self-guided learning in the team that they oversee in their professional role.
Knowledge Influence 1
The first knowledge influence is that it is important that YDPs know the competencies,
skills, and experiences necessary to be an effective practitioner. Five survey questions spoke to
the competencies, skills, and experiences of staff at their respective affiliates or sites:
• (Q10) How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Most staff
at my site…(This question has nine subparts, a-i, in which subparts a-e speak to
establishing caring relationships with youth and subparts f-i speak to exhibiting
positive behavior management.)
• (Q12d) Staff are knowledgeable about community services that may benefit affiliate
members and provide information about/referrals to these services to family members
as needed. (A 5-point Likert agreement scale was used.)
• (Q16) How many staff members at your affiliate do the following well? (This
question has six subparts, a-e, which speak to program activity and delivery.)
• (Q17) How many staff members at your site do the following regularly? (This
question has two subparts, a-b, which speak to high expectations of youth.)
• (Q18) How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. At this
site, staff members regularly…(This question has five subparts, a-e, which speak to
youth input and agency), and,
• (Q22) How confident are you in your ability to design and implement programs and
activities that are developmentally appropriate for the following age groups?
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 75
Although there were no survey questions that specifically asked respondents if they know the
particular competencies, skills, and experiences necessary to be an effective practitioner, the
phrasing of questions 16 to 18 suggests the importance of each subpart occurring at CYDO
affiliates. The questions suggest that all staff should or do have all competencies, skills, and
experiences stated. However, this does not necessarily indicate that respondents actually know
that these competencies, skills, and experiences listed are necessary to be an effective
practitioner.
Overall, for question 12d, YDPs tend to agree less (M=3.8, SD=0.96) that staff are
knowledgeable about community services that may benefit affiliate members as 67.0% agreed or
strongly agreed. Interestingly, 22.9% were undecided (e.g., neither agree nor disagree) and
10.1% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Thus, to one in three YDPs, staff at their site are
not knowledgeable about community services that may benefit members and thus these same
staff may not provide necessary information/referrals to family members. However, across
race/ethnicity of YDPs, statistically significant differences were found (F=8.6, p<.001) at α=.001
level with Latino and Black YDPs tending to agree more than White YDPs and YDPs of two or
more races/ethnicities that staff are knowledgeable about community services: Latino (M=3.9,
SD=0.91), Black (M=3.9, SD=0.94), White (M=3.7, SD=0.96), and YDPs indicating two or
more races/ethnicities (M=3.7, SD=1.04). Although across race/ethnicity there were differences,
no group strongly agreed to this question. This is important since, by question 10, most staff
should (a) know youth’s special interests and who their friends and family members are and (b)
know what is going on in youth’s lives, neighborhoods, and schools.
The phrasing of question 10 and its subparts suggests the importance of most staff
establishing caring relationships with the youth through knowing a great amount about their
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 76
youth members: names, interests, personalities, temperaments, learning styles, family, friends,
neighborhood, and school. It also suggests the importance of most staff practicing and
encouraging positive behavior management with the youth through modeling and teaching
positive values, promoting respectful relationships, guiding appropriate ways of self-expression,
and holding youth accountable for their behavior. Table 7 below illustrates the different levels of
agreement (1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) from YDPs regarding staff competencies
as outlined in question 10. For each of comparison, the results are sorted in descending order of
mean response followed by ascending order of standard deviation.
Table 7
Mean Level of Agreement Per Subpart
Assumed Cause
(sorted by mean)
Q10. How much do you agree or disagree with the following
statements? Most staff at my site…
Results
Mean St. Dev.
e…know the names of most regularly attending members with
whom they directly work.
4.6 0.62
c…model, demonstrate, and teach positive values, such as caring,
honesty, respect, and responsibility.
4.3 0.73
g…guide children and youth in appropriately expressing their
feelings and asserting themselves in positive ways.
4.2 0.75
d…identify and respond to individual differences in personalities,
temperaments, development, and learning styles.
4.2 0.78
f…manage young people’s behavior in ways that promote trusting
and respectful relationships between youth and staff.
4.2 0.78
i…hold youth accountable for their behavior in a fair and consistent
manner.
4.2 0.87
a…know youth’s special interests and who their friends and family
members are.
4.1 0.78
b…know what is going on in youth’s lives, neighborhoods, and
schools.
4.0 0.85
h…invite youth to help deliver the rules for behavior. 3.9 0.93
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 77
Although YDPs tend to strongly agree (M=4.6, SD=0.62) that most staff at their site
know the names of their regularly attending youth members, they agree significantly less that
most staff at their site know these youth’s special interests, families, and friends (M=4.1,
SD=0.78), and what goes on in the youth’s lives, neighborhoods, and schools (M=4.0, SD=0.85).
The difference is statistically significant at α=.001 for both knowing youth’s special interests
(t(5583)=45.26, p<.001) and knowing what goes on in their lives (t(5582)=55.31, p<.001). They
agree, on average, but they do not strongly agree. The sites may not be serving their youth
members as well as possible since YDPs do not strongly agree that most staff at their site know
this important information about their youth members and do not strongly agree that most staff
know the community services that could benefit youth members and their families.
Overall, YDPs agree the least (M=3.9, SD=0.93) that most staff invite youth to help
develop the rules for behavior. However, across race/ethnicity of YDPs, this question emerged
statistically significant differences (F=10.6, p<.001) at α=.001 level with Latino and Black YDPs
tending to agree more than White YDPs and YDPs of two or more races/ethnicities that staff at
their site invite youth to help develop the rules of behavior: Latino (M=4.1, SD=0.85), Black
(M=4.0, SD=0.89), White (M=3.8, SD=0.95), and YDPs indicating two or more races/ethnicities
(M=3.8, SD=1.03). This is interesting since overall, YDPs agree more (M=4.2, SD=0.87) that
most staff hold youth accountable for their behavior in a fair and consistent manner with Latino
(M=4.3, SD=0.81) and Black (M=4.2, SD=0.85) YDPs agreeing more than White YDPs (M=4.1,
SD=0.88) on this question (F=5.3, p<.001) at α=.001 level.
Supporting program delivery, the phrasing of question 16 and its subparts suggests the
importance of all staff members interacting and interrelating well with youth and other staff since
the response choices range from 1=“no staff members” to 5=“all staff members.” Such
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 78
interaction of all staff is bolstered if the relationships between staff and staff, and staff and youth
are satisfying. Answers to question 9a-c reveal YDPs are satisfied with their interpersonal
relationships with affiliate colleagues, superiors, and youth at different levels. With youth,
YDPs are very to completely satisfied (M=4.3, SD=0.74). With colleagues, they are very
satisfied (M=4.0, SD=0.91), and, with superiors, they are slightly less satisfied (M=3.9, SD=1.0).
These results were reflected across race/ethnicity as no statistically significant differences were
found.
Having strong and satisfying interpersonal relationships with youth is crucial to be able to
engage youth in high-yield activities and informal guidance that CYDO sees as important.
CYDO defines high-yield activities as “fun, hands-on activities that intentionally develop
knowledge or skills and support one or more of the priority outcomes of education, benefits,
health and good character.” CYDO defines informal guidance on the survey as
the process of helping youth make positive choices to aid in their academic success,
develop good character and citizenship, and lead a healthy lifestyle. Effective guidance
can occur once a supportive, trusting relationship has been built between a young person
and an affiliate staff member.
These definitions for activities and guidance are specific and are necessary for staff to do well.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 79
Table 8
Mean Results Per Subpart
Assumed Cause
(sorted by mean)
Q16. How many staff members at your affiliate do the following
well?
Results
Mean St. Dev.
f. Effectively provide informal guidance to youth. 4.4 0.79
c. Work well with other staff members at the affiliate. 4.4 0.80
b. Facilitate positive, supportive peer-to-peer relationships among
youth.
4.3 0.79
d. Make sure youth have fun in their program area every day. 4.3 0.81
a. Effectively manage conflicts among youth. 4.2 0.84
e. Effectively develop and facilitate high-yield activities. 4.2 0.87
Table 8 above illustrates how well YDPs see the following competencies, skills, and experiences
are fostered at their affiliate.
Questions 16a through 16f serve as a collective measure of program delivery. Thus, to
YDPs, most to all staff (M=4.3, SD=0.69) at their affiliate deliver program well. YDPs indicated
that most to all staff members at their affiliate interact well with staff and youth. Although
slightly less so, they also believe that most to all staff members effectively develop fun,
purposeful activities and provide informal guidance to youth. Statistically significant differences
across race/ethnicity of YDPs were found, however, at α=.001 level for (a) effectively manage
conflicts among youth and (e) effectively develop and facilitate high-yield activities. The results
in Table 9 below suggest that Black and Latino YDPs believe that more staff at their site
effectively manage conflicts and develop high-yield activities than White YDPs and YDPs of
two or more races/ethnicities believe of staff at their site.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 80
Table 9
Mean Comparisons Across Race/Ethnicity for Q16
Assumed Cause
(sorted by overall mean)
Race/Ethnicity
Q16 Overall Black White 2 or More Latino F p
a 4.2
(0.84)
4.4
(0.81)
4.1
(0.84)
4.2
(0.89)
4.4
(0.81)
17.91 .000
e 4.2
(0.87)
4.3
(0.83)
4.1
(0.88)
4.2
(0.94)
4.3
(0.84)
12.00 .000
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
Measuring high expectations, the phrasing of question 17 suggests the importance of all
staff members regularly having, setting, and communicating positivity and high expectations for
their affiliate members. The phrasing suggests that youth members must experience such high
expectations and positive communication from all staff regularly and consistently. Overall,
YDPs indicated most to all staff (M=4.2, SD=0.84) set high expectations for affiliate members’
efforts and slightly more (M=4.3, SD=0.78) communicate positive reinforcement for children’s
and youth’s efforts.
Measuring youth agency and input, question 18 also suggests the importance of all staff
members regularly supporting and engaging youth in activities and roles that will empower them,
give them leadership opportunities, and ownership of affiliate space and programming.
Respondents were asked to what level they agreed that staff at their affiliate regularly engage
youth in this way for five competencies or skills. Taking the five competencies as a collective
measure of youth agency and input, YDPs do not completely agree (M=3.7, SD=0.84) that staff
members regularly facilitate youth agency and input at their site. The differences in the level of
agreement across the five items in question 18 are shown in Table 10 below.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 81
Table 10
Means of Agreement on Youth Agency and Input Per Subpart
Assumed Cause
(sorted by mean)
Q18. How much do you agree or disagree with the following
statements? At this affiliate, staff members regularly…
Results
Mean St. Dev.
b. …support and encourage youth-led activities. 4.0 0.88
c. …encourage youth to take ownership of affiliate space (e.g.,
through providing opportunities for input into program
decorations, resources, materials, and furniture arrangements.)
4.0 0.97
a. …allow youth to play an active role in selecting activities
and programs.
3.9 0.95
Mean St. Dev.
d. …consult a youth-led leadership group that provides input
to staff regarding affiliate programming.
3.5 1.12
e. …facilitate opportunities for youth to be involved in staff
hiring decisions.
3.1 1.32
Although YDPs agree that staff members regularly support youth leadership of activities
and ownership of the affiliate space and program, they agree less that staff regularly give youth
the opportunity to be involved in affiliate hiring decisions, to have a say in who will interact with
them, guide, support, and empower them. In fact, one in three YDPs disagree or disagree
strongly (33.7%) that staff involve youth in staff hiring decisions and only 51.1% agree or
strongly agree that the youth-led leadership group is consulted for input regarding affiliate
programming. To a statistically significant level of α=.001 (t(5581)=40.03, p<.001), they also
agree less that staff regularly consult a youth-led leadership group or similar youth committee
that provides input to affiliate staff regarding affiliate programming.
Across race/ethnicity, statistically significant differences were found at α=.001 level.
Table 11 below for ANOVA results and mean differences for each subpart of question 18 and an
overall scale measure for Q18a-e. For each subpart measuring youth input and agency at the site
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 82
level, White YDPs agree significantly less than Black and Latino YDPs and in some cases YDPs
who identified as two or more races.
Table 11
Mean Comparisons of Agreement Across Race/Ethnicity for Q18
Assumed Cause
(sorted by overall mean)
Race/Ethnicity
Q18 Overall Black White 2 or More Latino F p
b 4.0
(0.89)
4.2
(0.81)
3.9
(0.93)
4.0
(0.95)
4.2
(0.82)
18.81 .000
c 4.0
(0.98)
4.1
(0.89)
3.8
(1.03)
3.9
(1.02)
4.0
(0.94)
13.54 .000
a 3.9
(0.95)
4.0
(0.88)
3.8
(0.99)
3.9
(1.01)
4.0
(0.91)
11.51 .000
d 3.5
(1.12)
3.7
(1.08)
3.2
(1.16)
3.4
(1.14)
3.6
(1.07)
25.85 .000
e 3.1
(1.32)
3.3
(1.30)
2.8
(1.30)
3.0
(1.35)
3.3
(1.29)
26.73 .000
Youth
Input and
Agency
(Scale a-e)
3.7
(0.84)
3.9
(0.79)
3.5
(0.85)
3.6
(0.86)
3.8
(0.81)
29.34 .000
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
The highest mean level of agreement is with Black (M=4.2, SD=0.81) and Latino
(M=4.2, SD=0.82) YDPs agreeing to strongly agreeing that at their site, staff members regularly
(b) support and encourage youth-led activities. Among Black, White, and Latino YDPs, the
differences between levels of agreement were particularly striking for (d) consulting a youth-led
leadership group regarding site programming and (e) facilitating opportunities for youth to be
involved in staff hiring decisions. These two items had the greatest mean differences of at least
0.45 between Black, White, and Latino YDPs. Although for this last measure of agency (e), all
YDPs, regardless of race or ethnicity, were, on average undecided to slightly agreeing, White
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 83
YDPs had the lowest mean response (M=2.8, SD=1.30) and had more disagreement than
agreement.
Staff not consulting the youth committees for programming input may give insight to
YDPs’ decreasing level of confidence with their ability to design and implement
developmentally appropriate programs for young people as they age. Question 22 asked
respondents how confident they were in their ability to design and implement programs and
activities that are developmentally appropriate for the age groups with whom they work. Table
12 below illustrates the differences in mean confidence level of YDPs per age group. The
confidence levels ranged from 1=“not at all confident” to “extremely confident.”
Table 12
Mean Levels of Confidence Per Age Group
Assumed Cause
Q22. How confident are you in your ability to design and implement programs and
activities that are developmentally appropriate for the following age groups?
Results
Mean St. Dev.
a. Ages 6-9 4.4 0.80
b. Ages 10-12 4.3 0.79
c. Ages 13-15 4.1 1.00
d. Ages 16-18 3.9 1.15
YDPs are more confident designing and implementing program for the youngest affiliate
members (aged 6 to 9). It is evident that their confidence decreases in designing and
implementing programs for youth as youth age. Statistically significant differences were found,
however, in confidence levels across race/ethnicity at α=.001 level (Table 13) and hours on site
per week at α=.05 level (Table 14) and, markedly so for ages 13 to 15 and ages 16 to 18.
Although all racial/ethnic groups decrease in confidence as youth members age, Black YDPs
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 84
expressed greater confidence in planning and implementing programming for the older youth
members than their counterparts. In terms of hours worked per week, YDPs who work 30 hours
or more at their site express greater confidence in planning and implementing programming for
the older youth members than YDPs who work fewer hours per week. It makes sense that the
more hours YDPs work at their site, the more confidence they would have in program planning
and implementation for their youth members as they age.
Table 13
Mean Comparisons of Confidence Across Race/Ethnicity for Q22
Assumed Cause
Race/Ethnicity
Q22 Overall Black White 2 or More Latino F p
c
4.1
(1.00)
4.3
(0.91)
4.0
(1.04)
4.1
(1.02)
4.0
(1.02)
9.88 .000
d 3.9
(1.15)
4.1
(1.04)
3.7
(1.21)
4.0
(1.11)
3.8
(1.19)
13.06 .000
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
Table 14
Mean Comparisons of Confidence Across Hours on Site per Week for Q22
Assumed Cause
Hours on Site per Week
Q22 Overall Less than 15 15 to 29 30 or more F p
c 4.1
(1.00)
4.0
(1.03)
4.1
(1.00)
4.2
(0.93)
3.75 .02
d 3.9
(1.15)
3.8
(1.20)
3.9
(1.17)
4.1
(1.05)
6.91 .001
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
In looking across racial/ethnic differences, it may be important to explore why Black
YDPs feel more confident in their planning implementation than their counterparts. What factors
support their higher levels of confidence? These differences are important to know, especially
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 85
since none of the mean responses, overall and across demographics, suggest that YDPs are
extremely confident in program planning and implementation for any age group and since
resources such as the youth-led councils, youth committees, in-person training, and online
training are apparently available at each affiliate. This is also important to know since YDPs are
very satisfied with their interpersonal relationships with colleagues—another resource that YDPs
should be able to consult to increase their confidence in working with any age group, but
especially with older youth.
While interview participants were not asked about whether YDPs are informed of the
competencies, skills and experiences necessary to be an effective practitioner, the interviewer did
inquire about whether YDPs entered the field equipped with all skills they needed to be
successful. All interviewees agreed that most YDPs enter the field with skills that can be
classified as intuitive. Yet, in different ways, the respondents asserted that there are skills that
also need to be taught. Interviewee C posited,
I think that people bring what they bring to the table, and it’s our responsibility to figure
out where the gap is between what they bring and what it is that we feel are the entry
level skills that are necessary.
Interviewee B referenced these intuitive skills as the “disposition” of the YDP. This respondent
asserted,
You may have some people who have a disposition and it comes natural to them and they
may naturally do it, but they don’t even know the fundamentals of why that works as
much as they just know it works.
Although the interviewees and survey respondents are addressing the knowledge
influence from different angles, it is apparent from both sets of responses that there are a set of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 86
skills that YDPs are confidently exhibiting. These may be the skills that our interviewees would
quantify as intuitive or inherent in their natural disposition. This could account for higher
satisfaction with the work and the collegial environment developed among peers at the
organization. In Ladder of Young People’s Participation, Hart (1994) described engaging youth
voice through the imagery of a ladder. Each rung represents a higher level of interaction and
engagement, which is employed by the educator or facilitator (Hart, 1994). Facilitating youth-led
instruction and empowering youth as the facilitator is at the highest rung of Hart’s ladder, which
could imply that it requires a high level of skill from the instructor. Therefore, it is
understandable that these are skills that YDPs indicate that they have less confidence in their
abilities. These are also techniques that are most frequently used to engage adolescents, which
also accounts for the lack of confidence exhibited when working with youth aged 16 to 18.
Knowledge Influence 2
The second knowledge influence was that YDPs have a clearly outlined scope and
sequence of work-based learning opportunities. Although research has shown the importance of
having a clearly outlined scope and sequence (Yohalem et al., 2010), this organizational
influence did not present in the survey. There were no survey questions that addressed a scope
and sequence of work-based learning opportunities at local organizations. However, interviewees
were asked to specifically share resources designed to expand the educational and work-based
learning opportunities of YDPs. Three of the four respondents mentioned resources available
through the David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality. The Weikart Center utilizes an
approach centered on research-based practices that includes continuous quality improvement
tools, a manager and front-line staff workshop series as well as a clearly articulated competency
model (David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality, 2018). Interviewees B and D also
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 87
referenced the National Afterschool Association’s Core Knowledge and Competencies for
Afterschool and Youth Development Professionals (2011). The National Afterschool
Association describes this framework as, “the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed by
professionals to provide high-quality afterschool and youth development programming and
support the learning and development of children and youth” (National Afterschool Association
[NAA], 2011, p. 3). CYDO is in the process of adopting the NAA competencies (2011) as part of
their training model.
Interviewees A and C also referenced CYDO’s Presidential Leadership University. Both
alluded to the fact that Presidential Leadership University provides both synchronous and
asynchronous learning opportunities to YDPs, but the resource is greatly underutilized. This
institution does provide a scope and sequence of training sessions, yet participation is not
required or mandated. Interviewee C stated, “I would venture to say about 20% of our
organizations are accessing.” This low participation rate was attributed to the difficulty YDPs
have in gaining access to the tool and the out dated format of the medium. It is important to note
that Interviewee C expressed there has been updates to the system that may increase usage.
As aligned with the Yohalem and colleagues’ (2010) assertions, each respondent
compiled a list of resources that provided a scope and sequence of learning opportunities, but
they were not frameworks universally adopted by the out of school time sector. This, in some
ways, renders these tools ineffective in meeting the needs of YDPs across the field. This is not a
reflection of the quality of the resources, simply the barrier of access. Interviewee D posited,
There’s some great stuff, but it’s not tied into a system, and you will see a big systems
bias from me because I’ve experienced trying to get youth development
professionalization in a place where there are no systems. And you have to be a self-
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 88
driven learner at an extreme level. Where there are systems, it is more laid out in a way
that maybe education is, or our other professions.
This may account for why the question was not explicitly included in the National Youth
Outcomes Initiative Survey.
Motivation Influence 1
The first motivation-related influence was that, as research has shown, YDPs understand
the benefits to engaging in work-based learning to improve their instructional practices (Eccles,
2006). Although there were no questions on the survey which explicitly asked if respondents
understood the benefits of work-based learning specifically to improve their instructional
practice, there were questions that spoke to areas such as satisfaction with job training in their
current position (Q9e), types of training received affiliate (Q20a-e), benefits of training received
at the affiliate (Q21a-e), and program goal setting and evaluation (Q27a-c). Appendix A
presents specific questions, question subparts, and response options.
In their current positions, YDPs are, on average, moderately to very satisfied (M=3.7,
SD=1.08) with their job training, with nearly six in 10 YDPs being very satisfied (35.3%) or
completely satisfied (24.4%). The remaining four in 10, however, are only moderately satisfied
(26.5%) to not satisfied at all (4.6%). Across demographics, YDPs who work full time are
statistically less satisfied at α=.001 level (F=8.05, p<.001) with their job training (M=3.6,
SD=1.08) than YDPs who work 15 to 29 hours per week (M=3.6, SD=1.08) and YDPs who work
less than 15 hours per week (M=3.8, SD=1.07). Appendix C presents levels of satisfaction for
question 9 subparts that speak to job training, recognition, security, and career advancement
opportunities to gain a broader perspective across hours worked per week.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 89
Out of seven types of training listed on the survey, respondents were asked the types of
training they had received. Appendices A and C presents the seven types of training listed. Four
of the seven types provided speak to work-based learning and instructional practice: (Q20b)
online computer-based sessions, (Q20c) formal classroom training, (Q20d) my peers have
observed me conducting program activities and provided me with coaching, and (Q20e) my
supervisor has observed me conducting program activities and provided me with coaching. For
the YDPs that participated in these four training sessions, over 20% more YDPs received
observation and coaching from their supervisor than received online computer-based sessions
and formal classroom training, and over 15% more than observation and coaching from their
peers. Figure 3 depicts percentages for each type of training.
Figure 3. Percentages of YDPs receiving trainings that speak to work-based learning that
improves instructional practices (Q21b-e)
For each type of training they received, respondents were asked in question 21 how
beneficial each was. Collectively, YDPs found these four training types very beneficial (M=4.0,
SD=0.83). Figure 4 presents percentages for very beneficial and completely beneficial for each
training type.
46.0%
47.1%
54.3%
69.4%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
Online computer-based sessions
Formal classroom training
Peers observation and coaching
Supervisor observation and coaching
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 90
Figure 4. How beneficial YDPs find trainings that speak to YDP work-based learning
that improves instructional practices (Q21b-e)
YDPs found in-person training (e.g., peer and supervisor observation and coaching and
formal classroom training) (M=4.2, SD=0.75) more beneficial than online computer-based
training (M=3.7, SD=1.06). Using a paired t-test, this difference of benefit between in-person
and online training was statistically significant at α=.001 level (t(2297)=26.86, p<.001). Across
race/ethnicity, statistically significant differences were found at α=.001 level across mean
responses to how beneficial these trainings were for YDPs. Table 15 below presents mean
responses that were markedly different. Mean responses for peer and supervisor observation
were nearly the same across groups.
23.4%
35.8%
38.4%
42.7%
34.2%
42.4%
43.7%
42.3%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Online computer-based
sessions
Formal classroom training
Peers observation and
coaching
Supervisor observation and
coaching
Very Beneficial Completely Beneficial
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 91
Table 15
Mean Comparisons of Training Benefit Across Race/Ethnicity for Q21
Assumed Cause
Race/Ethnicity
Q21 Overall Black White 2 or More Latino F p
b. Online sessions
3.6
(1.08)
4.0
(0.96)
3.3
(1.13)
3.6
(1.03)
3.7
(1.05)
21.65 .000
c. Classroom training 4.1
(0.87)
4.2
(0.82)
3.9
(0.94)
4.1
(0.84)
4.1
(0.82)
8.16 .000
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
White YDPs found the online sessions the least beneficial of the training and less
beneficial than their counterparts while Black YDPs found the online sessions significantly more
beneficial than their counterparts. Understanding the differences of how beneficial each group
sees the training, whether in-person or online, is important as CYDO looks to deliver optimal
programming to its youth members. The purpose of in-person and online trainings, particularly
with the observation and coaching components, is to support YDPs in their current roles and
improve their engagement and program practices and delivery to youth members.
With respect to program goal setting and evaluation at staff meetings (Q27a-c), overall
YDPs often (M=4.0, SD=0.92) set and review their progress on program goals, plan programs
and activities, and evaluate program/activity effectiveness. Over 70% of YDPs indicate doing
these activities often or always at their staff meetings. Figure 5 below presents the higher
frequency percentages.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 92
Figure 5. How frequently YDPs set, plan, and evaluate program goals at staff meetings
(Q27a-c)
As such, utility value is demonstrated with YDPs participating in and finding the four
training sessions very to completely beneficial, particularly in-person sessions. It is
demonstrated as well with how frequently they set and evaluate program goals at staff meetings.
Across race/ethnicity, statistically significant differences were found at α=.001 level across mean
responses to how frequently these activities occur for YDPs. Table 16 below illustrates on
average how more frequently Black and Latino YDPs see these activities occurring at staff
meetings at their site than White YDPs.
Table 16
Mean Comparisons of Frequency of Activities Across Race/Ethnicity for Q27a-c
Assumed Cause
Race/Ethnicity
Q27 Overall Black White 2 or More Latino F p
a. Setting and
reviewing progress
3.9
(1.02)
4.1
(0.98)
3.8
(1.06)
3.9
(1.06)
4.0
(0.96)
14.46 .000
b. Planning programs
and activities
4.0
(1.04)
4.2
(0.96)
3.8
(1.10)
4.0
(1.08)
4.1
(0.96)
22.12 .000
c. Evaluating program
effectiveness
3.9
(1.02)
4.0
(1.00)
3.8
(1.04)
3.9
(1.07)
4.1
(0.93)
12.34 .000
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 93
Although, the interview respondents were not explicitly asked any questions related to
this motivational influence, they were asked about perceived barriers to participation in
educational or work-based learning opportunities. Interviewee C remarked that there are issues
connected to permission being granted to all YDPs to participate in Presidential Leadership
University learning opportunities. Yet, this respondent also believes in the 70/20/10 learning
model. Through this model, Interviewee C believes that individuals gain
10% of their learnings from formal training programs, about 20% from mentoring and
various experiences that allow them to be coached…shadowed, to participate in
shadowing opportunities…to illustrate their skills and competencies to others through
projects, et cetera…of course 70%...time on task…demonstrating by evidence,
proficiencies…
This methodology supports YDPs’ assertions that they have engaged in and found less
formalized trainings to be beneficial. Administrators may also be using these methods to fill the
gap of their inability to fund other formalized learning opportunities.
Motivation Influence 2
The second motivation influence is that YDPs envision a long-term career in the youth
development field. Research has shown that the role of the YDP is a transitional one with high
turnover and low wages (Shockley & Thompson, 2012; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Travis,
2010). Therefore, the topic of YDPs pursuing long-term career opportunities is rarely addressed
in the literature. Although there were no questions on the survey which explicitly asked if
respondents envisioned themselves in this way, there were questions that spoke to overall
satisfaction with their current position (Q8) and possible longevity in the field and at the affiliate:
years of experience directly serving youth in a professional capacity (Q4), length of service in
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 94
the affiliate (Q5), and job security (Q9g). Approximately two-thirds of YDPs at CYDO are very
(42.8%) to completely (22.4%) satisfied overall with their current position while one-third are
moderately (27.1%), slightly satisfied (6.7%), or not satisfied at all (1.1%). Thus, on average,
YDPs are moderately to very satisfied with their current position (M=3.8, SD=0.90). They are
not, on average, completely satisfied. Across race/ethnicity, all mean responses were less than
4.0 or less than very satisfied.
Question 4 asked respondents how much experience they have directly serving youth in a
professional capacity, where that capacity could have been as youth development or afterschool
program staff, in teaching, in social work, or other similar fields. Question 5 asked how long
they have worked at the site regardless of position. Response options for both questions are
time-ordered and coded from 1=“Less than one year” to 6=“20+ years.” Appendix A presents
specific questions and response options. Across race/ethnicity, Black YDPs (M=2.2, SD=1.27)
have worked, on average, at their site longer than their counterparts (F=8.13, p<.001): White
YDPs (M=1.9, SD=1.11), YDPs of two or more races (M=1.9, SD=1.03), and Latino YDPs
(M=2.0, SD=1.11). This means that Black YDPs have been at their site, on average, more than
two years while their counterparts have been at their site on average two years or less.
Figure 6 below illustrates the distribution of time that YDPs have spent directly serving
youth overall in a professional capacity and specifically at their affiliate. Nearly 30% more
YDPs indicated that they have worked less than one year at the site than directly serving youth in
a professional capacity. It must be kept in mind that question 5 is not position specific. Starting
at three to four years of service, as length of service increases, more YDPs have directly served
youth longer in a professional capacity than at their respective affiliates. Although YDPs are
decreasingly serving longer years at their affiliate, job security inside of their CYDO affiliate
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 95
still seems important as nearly seven in 10 YDPs are very satisfied (39.1%) or completely
satisfied (30.4%) with the job security of their current position. Although job security and years
of service are important in understanding respondents’ career outlook in their site and the field at
large, the more pointed question of “Do you envision a long-term career in the youth
development field?” and the follow-up question of “In what capacity?” would have spoken
directly to this motivation influence and given insight to how YDPs see themselves progressing
upward within their site.
Figure 6. Length of time serving youth overall and at the site for YDPs.
All interviewees were asked to describe the career trajectory for YDPs. They all
articulated in different ways that there was no explicit career path, but youth development work
imparts skills that can be applied to a number of professions both in and out of the field. They
also all referenced this idea of there being both a ladder and lattice in the sector. Interviewee B
describes, “I’m a real believer in the concept of a lattice versus the career ladder. They say a
lattice means you can go in different directions and make your way through things.” Interviewee
C corroborates this assertion by explaining, “I don’t think we’ve done a very good job with
communicating that (ladder and lattice) in a way that people see this as a profession with lots of
15.6%
26.5%
24.9%
17.2%
10.5%
5.3%
44.7%
27.3%
15.8%
8.3%
3.1%
0.8%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Less than one
year
1-2 years 3-4 years 5-9 years 10-19 years 20+ years
Q4. Experience directly serving youth Q5. Length of service at site
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 96
opportunities for upward mobility, and lateral mobility.” Interviewee B also believes that a
YDP’s pathway in the field should be dictated by their passion for the work, not a prescribed
formula.
Given the profile of the YDPs garnered from the survey responses, it can be assumed that
many of the YDPs are still grappling with their future goals and aspirations and may view their
roles as temporary. The survey indicates that 44.7% of respondents have served in their
respective roles for less than a year. The exclusion of questions regarding a career pathway may
indicate that they are not aware of the vertical and lateral opportunities available. All interview
respondents affirmed that they believed that these options were not readily articulated to YDPs.
Cultural Model Influence 1
The first cultural model influence is that the youth development field is mostly comprised
of part-time employees. Research has shown that many youth development organizations
primarily utilize part-time workers who work three to four hours a day and often arrive shortly
before the program participants (Harris, 2014; Travis, 2010). This part-time work model was
reflected among the YDPs at CYDO in terms of the number of hours spent on site (Q2a) and the
number of paid hours YDPs have available to plan and prepare for program activities at the site
(Q23). The vast majority (86.5%) of YDPs work part-time: 68.9% work 15 to 29 hours per week
and 17.6% work less than 15 hours per week. YDPs who work full-time or 30 hours or more a
week comprise 13.5% of the respondents.
These part-time workers have a few hours to plan and prepare to deliver program
activities effectively to their youth members. Thus, the more hours part-time YDPs work, the
more hours they have to plan and prepare for program activities (rs(5579)=.24, p<.001). Table
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 97
17 below presents the number of part-time hours YDPs work compared to the number of hours
for program planning and preparation.
Table 17
Cultural Influence 1: Part-Time YDP Work Hours Versus Planning Hours
Less
than 1 hr
1-2 hrs
2-3 hrs
3-4 hrs
4-5 hrs
More than
5 hrs
Less than
15 hrs/wk
51.3%
31.7%
8.1%
4.5%
2.1%
2.3%
15-29
hrs/wk
35.5%
34.3%
11.2%
7.6%
7.9%
3.5%
Overall, part-time YDPs have less time to plan (M=2.2, SD=1.37) than full-time YDPs
(M=3.4, SD=1.79). This means, per week, that part-time YDPs have a little over 1 or 2 hours to
plan while full-time YDPs have a little over 2 or 3 hours. This difference in available time is
statistically significant at α=.001 level (t(896.94)= -17.54, p<.001). This reflects the literature in
how YDPs may arrive with little time before their starting time to plan for the activities with the
affiliate members for the day.
To compare the number of hours worked by YDPs across demographics, the Kruskal-
Wallis Test was conducted at α = .05 level. Statistically significant differences were found
between the number of hours worked and the following demographics (p<.001): age, education,
years of experience serving youth, time working at the site, gender, and former affiliate
membership. This means that the categories for each demographic differed significantly on the
number of hours worked by YDPs. Interestingly, for years of experience serving youth in a
professional capacity, YDPs who work 15 to 29 hours a week are younger and had less
experience than YDPs who work less than 15 hours or 30 or more hours. YDPs who work 30 or
more hours have worked longer at the site and are more likely to be former affiliate members
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 98
than the other two groups. A striking difference emerged regarding educational attainment.
YDPs who work 30 hours or more have slightly higher educational attainment (M=6.4, some
college to associate’s degree) than YDPs who work 15 to 29 hours (M=5.7, current college
student to some college) and those who work fewer than 15 hours (M=6.2, some college to
associate’s degree). Figure 7 below shows there was not a statistically significant difference by
race.
Figure 7. Comparison of mean level of educational attainment across number of hours
YDPs work on site per week.
Interviewee A attributes the part-time nature of the YDP role as a barrier to offering
consistent learning opportunities to staff. This interview participant described their experience
working as a YDP at the time when most of the staff worked full time. It provided them YDPs
with more time to attend work-based learning experiences. The respondent also remarked that
school based sites have a lot of trouble finding a time for their staff to attend trainings. Since out
of school time organizations are often open when schools are closed, they have to utilize half
days to offer trainings. Interviewee A asserted, “There’s a limited time period. It’s just the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 99
amount of time and, having to pay them to attend training is difficult.” These comments support
the findings in the survey results.
Cultural Model Influence 2
The second cultural model influence is that there is a lack of funding dedicated to
providing educational and work-based learning opportunities for YDPs. Although research has
shown this lack of funding (Baron, 2015; Borden & Perkins, 2006; Yohalem et al., 2010), this
organizational influence did not present in the survey. There were no survey questions that
addressed lack of funding directly. All interview respondents referenced funding as a barrier to
offering ongoing learning opportunities to YDPs. One interviewee explicitly claimed that the
only work that gets done is the work that is funded. CYDO’s Presidential Leadership University
is funded through a number of partners. Interviewee C posited that line items from multiple
grants support the development of learning opportunities. This ensures that trainings are
delivered and program quality is supported.
While funding to support educational and work-based learning opportunities is limited,
there are organizations interested in this work. The S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation: Stephen
Bechtel Fund was referenced multiple times by the interview respondents. This foundation has
dedicated millions of dollars to identifying best practices in the youth development field (The S.
D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, 2018). Interviewee D believes that their interest and fund investment
has encouraged the partnership between some of the larger national non-profits to work
collaboratively to address the gap in educational and work-based learning opportunities across
the field. All interviewees hoped that Bechtel’s dedication of assets would be the impetus for
systems level approaches to this work.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 100
Cultural Setting Influence 1
The first cultural setting influence is that there is no clear professional trajectory for
YDPs, so they are less inclined to participate in additional learning opportunities without
monetary compensation. Although there were no survey questions that specifically asked
respondents about their professional trajectories at their site and their impetus for participating in
additional learning opportunities, there were questions that asked about professional
development activities and planning with supervisors and career advancement opportunities.
When asked how frequently professional development activities occur at staff meetings (Q27f),
31.4% of YDPs indicated often, 28.9% indicated always, and 25.9% indicated sometimes.
Respondents were also asked the types of training they had received (Q20). Two of the seven
types spoke to professional trajectory: (Q20f) Making annual professional development plan
with direct supervisor (e.g., for advancement, career building, skill upgrading, etc.) and (Q20g)
Regular meetings with my supervisor to discuss progress towards my professional development
plan.
The difference in YDPs in total receiving (or not receiving) these two types of training is
seen in Figure 8 below. Using the (Chi-Square) McNemar test to compare counts within related
samples, the difference is statistically significant (p<.001) at α=.001 level where approximately
30% more YDPs indicated meeting regularly with their supervisors than making annual
professional development plans with their supervisors. Figure 8 also illustrates the increase in
percentage of YDPs receiving training as their hours on site increases. Intuitively, this increase
makes sense—the more hours YDPs are available at their site, the more training (e.g., regular
and annual meetings) they can receive.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 101
Figure 8. Percentage of trainings received (Q20f, g) that speak to YDP professional
trajectory across the hours YDPs work on site per week.
Importantly, although only a little over a third of YDPs make annual professional
development plans with their direct supervisor for career advancement and skill upgrading,
80.4% of them meet regularly with their supervisors about their plans. Conversely, the
difference is that 44.8% of YDPs do not have regular meetings with their supervisors to discuss
progress towards their professional development plan and 64.7% of YDPs do not make annual
professional development plans with their supervisors. Among full-time (30 hours or more)
YDPs, nearly two-thirds hold regular meetings with their supervisor and one-third do not, and
over half do not make annual professional development plans with their supervisor. These
results lead to questions regarding the reasons behind these numbers. Such low percentages are
understandable for part-time YDPs but not necessarily so for full-time YDPs. This suggests that
a clear professional trajectory or purpose to pursue such a trajectory may not be evident or
available to YDPs at their locations, especially for YDPs that do not work full-time.
For each type of training they received, respondents were asked in question 21 how
beneficial each was. A high majority (84.5%) of YDPs who have regular meetings with their
supervisor find those meetings very beneficial (39.5%) or completely beneficial (45.0%). A high
47.5%
55.2%
65.2%
55.2%
29.7%
34.3%
47.7%
35.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Less than 15 hrs 15 to 29 hrs 30 hrs or more Total
Holding regular meetings to discuss professional development plan
Making annual professional development plan
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 102
majority (79.9%) of YDPs who make an annual professional development plan with their direct
supervisor also find it very beneficial (42.4%) or completely beneficial (37.5%). However, more
YDPs find regular meetings with their supervisor beneficial (M=4.3, SD=0.82) than making an
annual professional development plan with their supervisor (M=4.1, SD=0.84). The difference is
statistically significant at α=.01 (t(1575)=-6.10, p<.001). The differences across race/ethnicity
are also statistically significant at α=.001. Table 18 presents mean differences in benefit. While
YDPs across race/ethnicity find regular meetings similarly beneficial, White YDPs find annual
meetings less beneficial than their counterparts.
Table 18
Mean Comparisons of Training Benefit Across Race/Ethnicity Q21f, g
Assumed Cause
Race/Ethnicity
Q21 Overall Black White 2 or More Latino F p
f. Making annual
meeting to develop
professional plan
4.1
(0.84)
4.3
(0.74)
4.0
(0.92)
4.2
(0.76)
4.2
(0.81)
6.67 .000
g. Holding regular
meetings to discuss
professional
development plan
4.3
(0.82)
4.3
(0.79)
4.2
(0.86)
4.3
(0.87)
4.3
(0.75)
3.11 .003
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
YDPs were asked in question 9 how satisfied or dissatisfied they were in their current
position with respect to seven aspects of their affiliate. Career advancement opportunities (Q9d)
was the only aspect that suggests a professional trajectory, with which less than half of YDPs in
their current position are very satisfied (27.9%) or completely satisfied (17.0%). Thus, 55% of
YDPs in their current position are not at all satisfied to only moderately satisfied with the career
advancement opportunities at their affiliate. Although trajectory within the organization was not
explicitly defined in the survey nor asked explicitly of the respondents as a goal (i.e., “Which of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 103
the following staff position titles most closely describes a position you would like to attain at
your affiliate?” “Where do you see yourself in the affiliate or organization in two years, five
years?” or “To which role(s) in the affiliate or CYDO organization would you like to aspire?”),
examples of roles or position categories upward of YDP were provided in question 6: (1)
assistant program director/program director/site level coordinator; (2) site, unit, or affiliate
director/assistant director/coordinator; and (3) executive director/officer. Table 19 below shows
the number and percentage of respondents in each position from YDP to executive
director/office in CYDO.
Table 19
Q6. Which of the following staff position titles most closely describes your current role at [your
site]?
N %
Executive Director/Officer 348 3.0
Site, Unit, or Affiliate Director/Assistant Director/Coordinator 2195 18.8
Program Director/Assistant Director/Coordinator (site level) 1819 15.6
Youth Development Professional 5587 47.9
Thirteen different roles were given as examples that YDPs play across CYDO. Since the
list was not an exhaustive list, it can be assumed that there are even more roles that YDPs play or
can play at their affiliate, where YDPs may have multiple positions. Although there are multiple
role opportunities within each position category as indicated on the survey, a clear professional
trajectory for YDPs is not evident through the survey items themselves nor the responses from
the YDPs regarding their career advancement opportunities and professional development
planning and meetings with their supervisor. Although there are higher positions within each
affiliate, it is also not evident if YDPs know or have the opportunity to attain those higher
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 104
positions and do attain them. The differences in positions held across race/ethnicity are
illustrated in Table 20 below.
Table 20
Comparisons of CYDO Positions from YDP Upward Across Race/Ethnicity for Q6
Race/Ethnicity
Black White 2 or More Latino Total
Executive Director/Officer
64
18.4%
229
65.8%
9
2.6%
25
7.2%
348
Site, Unit, or Affiliate Director
/Assistant Director/ Coordinator
639
29.1%
911
41.5%
111
5.1%
390
17.8%
2195
Program Director/Assistant
Director/Coordinator (site level)
470
25.8%
758
41.7%
130
7.1%
307
16.9%
1819
Youth Development Professional 1696
30.4%
1866
33.4%
523
9.4%
1044
18.7%
5587
Significantly higher percentages of executive directors/officers and site directors/assistant
directors in CYDO are White—the higher the positions, the higher percentages of White staff
populate these positions. The opposite is true for staff who are not White as their percentages in
higher positions decrease across the board. Said another way, the higher the levels of upward
mobility, the lower percentages of non-White staff occupy those higher levels. One must ask
critical questions as to why these racial/ethnic disparities in position and upward mobility exist
within CYDO.
Interviewee D remarked that there has been a long history of staff members viewing a
singular ladder of leadership in the youth development field. The respondent described,
“In the past, it’s been, like, if you’re in an out of school time program, you go part-time,
you go full time, you go ops, site director, and, then, the ultimate goal was CEO. That
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 105
thinking is nuts because the skillset between ops, and CEO, or executive director [is] the
difference between a fundraising skillset, or a sales skillset.
Interviewee D attributes YDPs’ interest in progression to the desire of moving from a low hourly
wage to a higher annual salary with benefits. This is a different perspective to the discourse on
funding addressed in subsequent sections. Interviewee D explained that the field is beginning to
realize that youth development is a standalone profession and if you improve and strengthen your
skillsets there are a myriad of career options available. These opportunities could be at similar
organizations on the local level or at national entities.
Since the average YDP is between 18 and 29 years of age and, in college, it is
understandable that there is a range of professions that the survey respondents could reach. This
may also explain why YDPs find it very beneficial to meet with their direct supervisor and
discuss their annual professional development plan, particularly when so many expressed that
they were not at all or moderately satisfied with the opportunities available to them. Given these
factors, it may be safe to assume that compensation influences attendance to educational and
work-based learning opportunities. Yet, Interviewee C, firmly asserted that if the resources were
more accessible and the cost was low, YDPs would attend on their own accord, possibly due to
an interest in remaining in the field.
Cultural Setting Influence 2
The second cultural setting influence is that there is a lack of clearly identified
competencies for YDPs. Although research has shown this to be the case, this organizational
influence did not present in the survey. There were no survey questions that spoke directly to
such a lack within the organization. The absence of such identified competencies from the
survey may suggest that such a lack within the organization exists. Although, the NAA’s
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 106
competencies were mentioned by two of the interview respondents, each interviewee was asked
how they would describe the role of a YDP to someone not familiar with the field as well as the
skills necessary for individuals to possess. Each respondent shared these descriptors and
characteristics from their own perspectives. Table 21 indicates their responses.
Table 21
What Skills Do You Think are Important for Youth Development Professionals to Possess?
Interviewee
Skills A B C D
Awareness of developmental characteristics and age-
appropriate activities
✔
✔
Ability to help youth achieve their goals
✔
✔
Ability to help youth find their passions
✔ ✔
Ability to teach youth how to take responsible risks
✔
Ability to teach youth to expand their boundaries
✔
Understanding of group development stages (forming,
storming and norming)
✔ ✔
Building relationships with youth
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Patience
✔
Motivation Skills
✔
Flexibility
✔
Collaboration Skills
✔
Ability to make youth feel special and unique
✔
Cultural Competence
✔
Ability to help youth feel emotionally and physically safe
✔
Ability to sustain healthy relationships
✔
Ability to recognize high-quality practice
✔ ✔ ✔
Content expertise/ understanding of youth development
characteristics
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
It is apparent from the interviewees’ responses that there is a diverse set of skills that
each respondent felt was essential. Their responses to the aforementioned question also resonate
with the dichotomy between learned skills and intuitive or disposition-based qualities.
Relationship building and content expertise/understanding of youth development characteristics
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 107
are the skills that all respondents agreed were essential for YDPs to possess, which confirms the
lack of universal competencies that have been adopted across the field. There does not appear to
be universal competencies across different departments at CYDO. Some interviewees did
mention that the organization is currently streamlining their definitions of the youth development
role and competencies. Adoption of the NAA competencies may assist with this acclimation
process.
When asked to describe the YDP role, all interviewees focused in on these individuals’
ability to coach, mentor and lead the next generation. Interviewee B described, “I would call
them shepherds of our future. The real role is to get to know those children and help them
become the best that they can be.” Interviewee A expressed the importance in YDPs helping
youth break their “buffalo boundaries.” These are barriers that children create for themselves and
are reluctant to go beyond due to an invisible fence built on false methodologies and messages.
Interviewee B also characterized YDPs as leaders due to their responsibility for modeling
positive behaviors for youth. Interviewee B asserted, “Leadership isn’t a position. It’s almost not
even a role. It’s almost an attitude.” Interviewee D echoed these sentiments in referring to YDPs
as “our mission bearers.” Even without a clearly articulated set of competencies, it can be
assessed from interviewees responses that there is a level of gravitas to the position that is rarely
reflected in the public sphere.
Synthesis
Analysis of the survey results and the interviews conducted sought to examine (1) the
extent to which CYDO’s strategic leadership is meeting its goal of providing high-quality
educational and work-based learning resources; (2) the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational elements related to CYDO successfully achieving its goals; and (3)
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 108
recommendations for improving organizational practices and influences for its YDPs. The
survey results indicate that, if CYDO subscribes to the 70/20/10 model, it is partially achieving
its goal around providing high-quality educational and work-based learning opportunities to
youth workers. Overall, the average YDP believes that their work is impacting the lives of
youth. While they may not receive training aligned with all competencies needed to effectively
fill the role, these workers do enter the field with some intuitive skills and disposition
characteristics that allow them to be primed for success. A level of confidence in these areas,
which may position them to adopt new skills and information, also bolsters them in the work.
This, however does not negate the responsibility of the organization to the fill the gap between
the skills these workers enter with and the competencies needed for success. CYDO
organizations find a measure of success in peer and supervisor observations and coaching, and
on the job experience, but less than half of the enterprise is not experiencing more formalized
professional development sessions, which is highly favored by individuals in the field.
There are a number of barriers that make it difficult for YDPs to receive ongoing work-
based learning opportunities. The interviewees cited access to an engaging portal, the part-time
nature of the role, and funding as factors that limit these experiences. Even though these barriers
may be difficult to surmount, it is important to note that YDPs are highly motivated to attend
these offerings. They express a high satisfaction with the role as it is presented, and some may
even have aspirations of continuing in the field. CYDO, like many youth-serving organizations
still struggle with how to articulate future career opportunities within the sector. This is evident
in the results that indicate that YDPs become less satisfied with their career advancement the
longer hours per week that are served at their local organization. This may be hindering YDPs
from seeing a future at their respective organizations.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 109
The survey and interview responses confirm the literature’s assertions that the field
struggles with identifying a clear scope and sequence for training as well as identifying the
competencies for effective practice (Travis, 2010; Yohalem et al., 2010). The results also
indicated that the average YDP is between 18 and 29 years old and has less than one year of
experience at the agency. After the initial year, the tenure of YDPs begins to lessen. This is
understandable if a majority of individuals in this role are in college, as indicated by the
demographic data. This reality leaves the field grappling with how to retain youth workers in the
field. Given YDPs’ satisfaction with coaching around their annual professional development
plan, it could be assumed that presenting them with the ladder and lattice of opportunities could
extend their tenure with their respective organizations. The subsequent chapter offers
recommendations on how to improve organizational practices and influencers for YDPs.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 110
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
This study explored the limited educational and professional learning opportunities
available to YDPs. In Chapter Four, this report examined (1) the extent to which CYDO’s
strategic leadership is meeting its goal of providing high-quality educational and work-based
learning resources (2) and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements related to
CYDO successfully achieving its goals. Results were presented utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008)
gap analysis framework and were specifically analyzed through the scope of knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences. At the close of the chapter, the key findings garnered
from the survey and interview data were synthesized. Some implications of the findings were
referenced, but they will be explored in more detail in the subsequent components of this report.
This chapter will address the final research question by providing recommendations for
improving the organizational practices and influences for YDPs at CYDO.
Recommendations for Practice to Address Influences
Chapter Five is aligned with the structure of previous chapters, relying heavily on Clark
and Estes’ (2008) model to frame the context-specific recommendations according to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers. Grounded in the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), a comprehensive evaluation and implementation plan,
Chapter Five culminates with an exploration of the strengths and weaknesses, limitations and
delimitations of the study as well as recommendations for future research.
Knowledge Recommendations
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model is a systematic, analytical method that helps
to clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization. As visible in Table 22, the researcher
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 111
generated assumed causes for the performance gap based on personal knowledge and related
literature. The table also provides context-specific recommendations based on the
aforementioned theoretical principles.
Table 22
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Youth development
professionals do not know
the competencies, skills and
experiences necessary to be
an effective practitioner.
(Declarative/Factual)
Y Y Acquiring skills for
expertise frequently begins
with learning declarative
knowledge about individual
procedural steps (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 20).
Provide information
outlining the
nature/qualities of an
effective practitioner.
Youth Development
professionals do not have a
clearly outlined scope and
sequence of work-based
learning opportunities.
(Declarative/ Conceptual)
Y Y Creating schemata helps
learners to organize
declarative knowledge in a
domain (Schraw, Veldt, &
Olafson, 2009).
Provide information
that outlines clearly the
scope and sequence of
work-based learning
opportunities.
*Indicate knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: (D)eclarative; (P)rocedural;
(M)etacognitive
Declarative knowledge solutions. While researchers have not identified a consistent
definition of the term, the concept of learning often references a change in an individual’s
attainment of knowledge or ability to execute a skill (Shuell, 2006). Krathwohl (2002) asserted
that knowledge is a multi-dimensional framework. Tangible information provides a basis for the
knowledge dimension while the process of acquiring material characterizes the social cognitive
dimension. The knowledge dimension is comprised of factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). The
knowledge influences explored in this study were aligned to each of the aforementioned
dimensions. This study sought to analyze how competency is articulated for YDPs and
subsequently developed through education and consistent professional learning opportunities.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 112
In Table 22, it is assumed that YDPs do not have a firm understanding of the
competencies and skills necessary to be an effective practitioner. Currently, most youth
development organizations create standards that are applicable to the mission and outcomes of
their respective organizations (Bowie & Bronte-Tinkew, 2006; Lauer & Little, 2005; Yohalem et
al., 2010). Research indicates that, when organizations are explicit about the definitions of the
work, they garner the interest of youth workers in additional learning opportunities that
ultimately lead to higher program quality (Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Huebner et al., 2003).
Although YDPs were not explicitly asked about the their understanding of the competencies
required to effectively serve in their role, it can be implied from survey questions 10 and 16 that
there is a hierarchy of skills that are valuable to CYDO and the local organizations. Interviewee
D referenced the idea of stand-alone processes versus a systems approach as a concern that needs
to be addressed not only by CYDO, but also by the greater field. Therefore, it is recommended
that CYDO adopt an established set of competencies that will serve as the framework for job
descriptions, organizational literature, performance evaluations and professional learning
experiences. These materials should also be reinforced as part of the onboarding process of all
YDPs. As this factual knowledge infiltrates the organization through these various modalities, it
will become a part of the organizational culture.
Two of the interview respondents alluded to the fact that CYDO is adopting the NAA’s
Core Knowledge and Competencies for Afterschool and Youth Development Professionals
(2011). This is an important first step, but it still does not respond to the need for a systemic
approach. One of the benchmarks for CYDO’ strategic plan is to elevate the organization’s
status in the sphere of national advocacy. As a subsequent step in the competency development
process, it would be ideal for CYDO to galvanize similar organizations to identify and adopt a
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 113
universal listing of competencies. The size and influence of CYDO and its peers could influence
the tide in adoption across the industry.
Creating an organization-based set of competencies is the initial step in developing a
scope and sequence of learning opportunities available to YDPs. Once CYDO has solidified
what YDPs need to know, they can develop a model for how to train around these skills. The
scope and sequence refers to the order in which information needs to be presented, acquired and
implemented. As indicated in Table 7, YDPs do not strongly agree that their peers know
important information about their youth or the community services necessary to assist their
participants. This may indicate that many of the YDPs across the CYDO are weaker skilled in
some important areas and require additional support. It is also evident in the findings highlighted
in Table 12 that YDPs lack confidence in their ability to work with older youth. YDPs are
acknowledging the gaps in their knowledge, which provides some intimation to CYDO of how
their skill progression should be structured. Interviewees A and C referenced the Presidential
Leadership University as a resource that is currently available to all YDPs. This modular system
is grounded in a scope and sequence for learning. Interviewee C explained that the program’s
pedagogy is framed on three different levels: entry, mastery and legacy. This framework also
serves as a tool that can be incorporated into the learning modules. As the competencies for
YDPs are solidified, CYDO should, in turn, align those standards with the scope and sequence of
the learning experience. This provides continuity among all information and tools offered by the
organization. It is important to note that creating the scope and sequence of learning is an
evolving process. Therefore, it will need to be revisited frequently to remain effective.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 114
Motivation Recommendations
Table 23 displays a complete list of the applicable motivational influences as well as
whether key stakeholders validated these factors during the study. The data shown below was
garnered from interview and survey responses as well as relevant literature. Given that serving
as a YDP is primarily a part-time role, motivation is an important factor in these individuals
gaining access to educational and work-based learning opportunities. Therefore, some
motivational factors listed in Table 23 had a higher probability of influencing the attainment of
additional learning opportunities than others. The recommendations listed below were developed
using relevant empirical findings and are supported by personal experience and Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis framework. There are a wide range of theories on motivational influence
yet, Table 23 relies on the methodologies proposed by Eccles (2006) and Yough and Anderman
(2006).
Table 23
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Utility Value:
Youth development
professionals do not
understand the value of
participating in work-based
learning opportunities.
N Y Individuals measure
perceived cost when
engaging in any action to
determine whether it is
worth the effort (Eccles,
2006).
Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance
and utility value of the work
or learning can help learners
develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2002).
Onboarding trainings
of youth development
professionals should
include a goal setting
component as well as
assessments that gauge
these individuals’
interest in the field,
their future learning
needs and their
expectations.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 115
Table 23, continued
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause, Need, or
Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Goal Orientation: Youth
development professionals
should want to pursue
professional learning
opportunities to gain
mastery rather than
distinguish themselves from
their peers.
V Y Individuals are more likely
to engage in an activity
when it provides value to
them. (Eccles, 2009).
Organizations should
employ a performance
evaluation process that
tracks goal completion
as well as self-
motivation and work
ethic.
Motivation is defined as “an internal state that initiates and maintains goal directed
behavior” (Mayer, 2011, p. 39). This multi-dimensional process is exclusive to the individual
and promotes behavior that is persistent, intense and designed to meet a pre-identified goal.
Eccles (2006) defined motivation as a key component of the learning process. Travis (2010)
indicated that YDPs are often drawn to the field because their personal beliefs are aligned with
the ethos of the organizations and their approach to positive youth development. These
individuals also often have a genuine interest in the children that they are serving (Edwards et al.,
2010).
Studies also show that, when offered specialized training in positive youth development,
youth workers described themselves as more self-competent. This proclamation also led to
longevity in the field (Edwards et al., 2010; Thompson & Shockley, 2012; Shockley &
Thompson, 2013). These findings have particular relevance to this study because YDPs who
participated in the survey, expressed confidence in developing programs for younger youth.
Although their confidence levels appeared to decrease for skills related to working with older
children and understanding of community resources. There was also a significant increase in the
confidence levels of YDPs who worked longer hours. This could be attributed to the fact that the
longer they worked, the more coaching and support they received from colleagues and/or
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 116
supervisors. Given the 70/20/10 model referenced by Interviewee C, this may be intentionally
constructed by CYDO learning professionals or a bi-product of this methodology being
promoted through the CYDO community. This is further reinforced by the findings in Figures 4
and 5 that indicate that supervision and coaching from peers and leadership are received at
higher rates and characterized as most beneficial to YDPs.
The first influence, as examined according to the motivational theory of utility value,
explains that YDPs need to understand how engaging in work-based learning sessions is valuable
in their daily practice (Eccles, 2006). The second influence was analyzed through goal
orientation theory to identify whether YDPs engage in these sessions to appease their own
personal learning goals or to excel among their peers and be positioned for job prospects within
the organization or field (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
Expectancy value motivational theory: Utility value. Eccles (2006) posited that the
value one attributes to learning is determined by four related constructs: intrinsic value,
attainment value, utility, and perceived cost. Intrinsic value refers to the enjoyment one receives
while executing a task. Attainment value is characterized by the relationship between one’s
image and the task completed. Individuals measure perceived cost when engaging in any action
to determine whether it is worth the effort (Eccles, 2006).
Utility value is defined by the value of the task in helping an individual meet a long- or
short-term goal. Yohalem and colleagues (2010) indicated that, while there is significant
diversity in the ages of staff members, many youth development workers enter the field early in
their careers and often possess an associate’s or higher degree. The evidence also highlights that
administrators at effective youth development organizations understand the importance of having
skilled YDPs, yet there are limited educational and professional development opportunities
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 117
available for their staff. According to Figures 3 and 5, there were four types of training that
YDPs indicated participating in most frequently: supervisor observation and coaching; peer
observation and coaching; formal classroom training; and online computer-based sessions.
Among these four, formal classroom training was identified by YDPs as being very beneficial,
but also characterized as being offered very little. This coupled with the fact that more than half
of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their career opportunities, implies that YDPs
are seeking additional educational and professional learning opportunities to appease their
curiosity or be more effective at serving youth. This can be described as intrinsic value, not
utility value. Therefore, this assumed influence was not validated through this study. Given this
finding, it is the recommendation that CYDO encourage local organizations to implement an
onboarding process for YDPs that includes a one on one goal setting component. This process
can be evaluated by incorporating explicit questions into NYOI that gauge YDPs interest in
remaining in the field. Survey results indicate that the average youth development professional
is less satisfied with their career advancement opportunities (M-3.3, SD=1.16), which may
explain why Figure 6 illustrates that there is a drop off in YDPs that serve in the role for over
two years. Given this assertion, it can be assumed that CYDO is missing the opportunity to
cultivate these individuals for a long term career in the sector.
Establishing onboarding trainings for individuals new to the field that include a goal
setting component will enhance managers’ ability to gauge YDPs’ interest in remaining in the
sector. Even though there are significant challenges in offering work-based learning, this
information could help identify which workers could benefit most immediately from additional
learning and support. It is important to note that this approach may create the challenge of some
staff members feeling less fulfilled because they are not explicitly being targeted for additional
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 118
learning experiences. It will be essential for CYDO to continue to increase access so that there
are multiple and affordable training options available for YDPs who do not envision a future in
the youth development field.
Goal orientation theory. Rooted in the theoretical framework of Bandura’s social
cognitive theory, goal orientation theory is a component of achievement motivation (Yough &
Anderman, 2006). Yough and Anderman (2006) asserted that goals are created in two different
metrics. One metric addresses mastery goals, while the other references performance goals.
Mastery goals are designed to push an individual to thoroughly understand a content area.
Performance goals highlight one’s ability in comparison to that of others. Yough and Anderman
also indicated that mastery and performance goals include another dynamic; they can be
separated into both approach and avoidance goals. Mastery approach goals are dedicated to true
understanding, and mastery avoidance goals are focused on circumventing misunderstanding.
Performance approach goals demonstrate that one is successfully meeting an expectation while
performance avoidance goals serve as a defense mechanism that allows individuals to prevent
themselves from seeming incompetent (Yough & Anderman, 2006).
While research has not particularly explored the motivating factors behind the goal
orientation of YDPs in relation to work-based learning participation, these individuals are
uniquely positioned to serve struggling youth (Harris, 2014). Travis (2010) asserted that the
attributions made by youth workers towards youth, allow them to be a developmental asset in the
lives of the children that they serve. By virtue of CYDO including questions regarding skill
implementation into their survey, it can be assumed that NYOI is utilized as a mode of
evaluation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) explained that professional development is
ineffective if the key learnings are not implemented into a professional’s daily practice. While
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 119
Figure 8 highlights that fewer than half of YDPs consistently review their professional
development plans with their direct supervisor, it also indicates that those that do engage in these
meetings find it very beneficial. More striking is that more than half of YDPs at CYDO do not
make professional development plans or meet regularly with leadership. This brings up a
question of whether any educational or professional learning opportunities at CYDO could be
effective, without the support of an evaluation system for all employees, particularly YDPs.
It is the recommendation that CYDO develop a mastery approach based system of
evaluation that is mandated for all employees that are working within the enterprise. This
evaluation framework should serve as a linchpin in the recommended scope and sequence of
learning experiences offered. These performance evaluations could also be a strong complement
to the goal setting process proposed in the prior section. Performance evaluations that focus on
the achievement of specific goals could also serve as a method for promoting goal orientation.
Incentives attached to strong evaluations could be used to build the self-efficacy and investment
of YDPs. This could also serve as a means of adding organizational value to educational and
work-based learning opportunities, which Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) found is essential
for learning professionals. It is interesting to note that the topic of evaluation did not come up in
the interviews.
Organization Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) framed performance problems as an illness that pervades an
organization. Supporting solutions to these problems rests in understanding the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational factors at play within the framework of the company (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Although organizations are entities that encompass a number of different
components, Schneider and colleagues (1996) asserted that the individuals, who are a part of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 120
them, personify the culture and climate of these institutions. Table 24 represents a list of
assumed organizational influences and whether they were validated through this study. Data
included in the table were compiled using the survey and interview results as well as relevant
literature.
Clark and Estes (2008) posited that organizations are more apt to meet their goals when
there is a shared understanding of their mission, vision and guiding principles. Established
organizations that are primed for growth are constantly evolving. These entities can experience
generative learning or adaptive learning. Generative learning positions organizations to
reflectively create and evolve while adaptive learning creates a support system around employees
(Senge, 1990). Therefore, to be successful, organizational structure and resources need to be
aligned, which can be a long process. As such, the data in Table 24 highlight the organizational
influences that emerged as high priorities for change.
Table 24
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence
1:
The youth development
field is mostly comprised
on part-time employees.
Y N Job satisfaction increases
when all organization
stakeholders agree on
culture, mission, goals,
and resources required to
achieve goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Finance and
development teams
work collaboratively
to re-configure the
organizational
operating budget to
accommodate
changing the
employment status
of youth
development
professionals from
part to full time.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 121
Table 24, continued
Assumed Organization
Influence: Cause, Need,
or Asset*
Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Organizations that engage
in continuous growth and
development are adopting
both generative and
adaptive learning.
Generative learning
positions organizations to
reflectively create and
evolve, while adaptive
learning creates a support
system around
employees, so that they
can cope with ebbs and
flows of change (Senge,
1990).
Cultural Model Influence
2: There is a lack of
funding dedicated to
providing educational and
work-based learning
opportunities for youth
development
professionals.
Y Y Organizations rely
heavily on resources.
Initiatives that are not
well-funded or supported
will inevitably fail
(Kezar, 2001).
Executives, finance
and development
teams work
collaboratively to
identify funds to
support work-based
learning initiatives
for youth
development
professionals.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1: There is no
clear professional
trajectory for youth
development
professionals, so they are
less inclined to participate
in additional learning
opportunities without
monetary compensation.
N N Not a priority.
Cultural Setting Influence
2: There is a lack of
clearly identified
competencies for youth
development
professionals.
Y Y If an organization
improves the knowledge,
skills and motivation of
their staff, they are more
inclined to meet their
performance and
organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Develop
competency-based
job descriptions for
youth development
professionals.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 122
Organizational culture and climate are terms that are interdependent and exhibited
through the internal and external operations of an organization (Schneider et al., 1996). For the
purpose of this study, the term organizational culture refers to the systems, practices, and
routines inferred by an organization’s members. These factors address the daily operations of the
organization as well as the goals that the group collectively pursues (Schneider et al., 1996).
Organizational culture is enacted by the values and philosophies that are subscribed to by
members of the unit. These cultural tenets are embedded into the subconscious of individuals and
are used to interpret the organizational systems, practices and routines (Schneider et al., 1996).
Youth Development Professionals as Part-Time Staff
The role of the YDP has been characterized as non-traditional. It often requires that staff
members employ a variety of skills to support participant engagement (Harris, 2014; Travis,
2010). Also, since these programs exist in the out of school time sector, the work includes
irregular hours, inconsistent salary and a lack of career advancement opportunities (Thompson &
Shockley, 2013). The utilization of a part-time staff model across the industry depreciates the
significance of the role and limits the ability of YDPs to dedicate time to preparing for sessions
and receiving training, which ultimately affects program quality. Table 17 indicated that YDPs
who work fewer than 15 hours per week have 1 to 2 hours to prepare, and those who serve in a
full-time role or served additional hours have approximately 2 to 3 hours to plan and prepare for
sessions. Little and colleagues (2008) asserted that program quality is central to the discourse on
how to create positive outcomes for youth through out of school time programming. Through a
survey of studies, they found that it was essential for programs to be sequenced and intentional.
Achieving these results requires short and long-term planning (Little et al., 2008). While
empirical studies have not offered a recommended amount of time that YDPs need for effective
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 123
program planning, given the impact areas that CYDO is attempting to address, it can be assumed
that 1 to 3 hours a week of planning time is not sufficient. Yet, with the significant limitation to
resources applied to YDPs’ educational and work-based learning opportunities, administrators
may not have options for mitigating this barrier. This begs the question of whose responsibility it
is to address this issue.
Interviewee B asserted, “ultimately it is the person who’s over that organization has to do
it.” Interviewee D agreed and expanded on the response to include some additional stakeholders.
Interviewee D explained,
I think it’s the responsibility of a CEO to resource that professional development. If we
look from a systems or political standpoint, of whose responsibility is it, we look at the
role of out-of-school time, and healthy community outcomes. It can be all our
responsibility, but political responsibility, you’ve got to have political advocates to
resource it.
Given the findings of this study, it is the recommendation that the cultural model of
YDPs as part-time employees is a significant barrier to the delivery of high-quality programs.
This issue needs to be addressed by stakeholders at all levels. Due to CYDO’s expressed interest
in political advocacy, it is important that the organization focuses on enlisting public officials at
all levels to stream additional funding earmarked explicitly for ongoing educational and
professional learning opportunities into the sector. In turn, local administrators need to make
increased work-based learning experiences an organizational priority. This will require enlisting
the support of board members and development professionals who lead fundraising efforts.
Interviewee C claims that a clear factor in all stakeholders understanding their role in training
and development efforts, is shifting the “public consciousness.” While the need for improvement
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 124
in increasing educational and professional learning for YDPs is immediate, it is important to note
that some of these approaches may take time. Shifting individuals’ consciousness is not an easy
task.
Lack of Funding Available for Expanded Learning Opportunities
Despite the influx of funding that has come into the youth development field through
federal initiatives like 21st Century Learning Centers, there are limited monetary resources
available for professional learning (Baron, 2015; Yohalem et al., 2010). While organization
administrators agree that expanded learning opportunities are important to ensuring program
quality, they report feeling uncertain about how to secure a sufficient amount of funds (Borden &
Perkins, 2006). Kezar (2001) asserted that organizations rely heavily on resources. Initiatives
that are not well-funded or supported will inevitably fail (Kezar, 2001). The inability of the field
to move quickly to address the issue of funding may be an intimation that there is an ideology
inherent to the youth development sector that providing educational and work-based learning
opportunities to front-line staff is not a priority (Borden & Perkins, 2006).
As mentioned, there are three levels of culture: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values and
underlying assumptions (Schein, 2004). Artifacts are the tangible and visible systems and
processes. Espoused beliefs are the ethos and principles of the organization. The underlying
assumptions are individuals’ subconscious beliefs and values (Schein, 2004). There may be an
assumption that YDPs do not need the same educational and work-based learning opportunities
as in-school educators, which may silence these workers and make them reluctant to express
their thoughts, ideas and needs (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Research indicates that YDPs
consistently request additional opportunities to expand their skills (Desimone et al., 2006; Travis,
2010). If managers are slow to respond due to an underlying belief that the role does not require
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 125
additional learning opportunities, they run the risk of disenfranchising their most essential
employees.
Wheelan (2010) suggested that, through externalities, the government can influence the
actions of individuals to benefit the social good. Increased funding to the youth development
field is one example of that, but creating mandates around YDP certification or preparedness
could be another. Yohalem and colleagues (2010) maintained that switching the narrative on
funding for educational and work-based learning opportunities needs to happen at both the
political and organizational level. These scholars recommended that, since the youth
development workforce is diverse, organizations should collectively advocate for an expansive
definition of youth work, which could be referred to as the K-16 educational pipeline (Yohalem
et al., 2010). Through defining this timeline, the sector could incorporate other adults, like social
workers, librarians, prevention specialists, and YDPs who support the overall development of
young people. Through the No Child Left Behind Act, the government has stipulated the
requirements for teacher readiness and certification, which in turn has positioned them to fund
initiatives that support best practices (Lauer et al., 2006). Current funding streams could be
extended or applied to include the aforementioned individuals who are stakeholders in the K-16
pipeline.
There Is No Clear Professional Trajectory for Youth Development Professionals
As indicated in the results of this study, there is no clearly articulated professional
trajectory for YDPs. It is interesting to note that the lack of communication of these pathways
does not prevent the reality that there is both a ladder and lattice of career opportunities within
the youth development industry. In survey question 6, respondents were asked to indicate which
roles they served in at the local organization. Although this examination did not explicitly
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 126
explore the intersection of race and access to educational and work-based learning opportunities,
there were areas where race emerged as a significant factor. Professional trajectory is one of
those areas. A little more than half of the survey respondents were serving in the youth
development role while the fewest served in the executive director/chief executive officer role.
Further analysis of the data to include race indicated that higher percentages of White
respondents served in the executive and senior level management roles. The higher the positions,
the higher percentages of White staff who populate these positions. The opposite is true for staff
who do not classify as White, as their percentages in higher positions decrease across the board.
These results regarding differences imply that there is less upward mobility for YDPs of
color, which contrasts with results indicating that, on average, Black YDPs are serving in their
roles at least two more years than their counterparts. They, along with Latino YDPs, also tend to
be former participants in the organizations’ programs. Comparisons to results also indicating that
Black and Latino YDPs have greater confidence in their ability to work with older youth and
position them to participate in rule setting and decision making, permit one to wonder why there
is not a higher level of upward mobility for these workers. The response may be connected to
Interviewee D’s assertion that the executive and senior leadership roles require a different skill-
set. If that is the case, then it is important for CYDO to ensure that all YDPs are consistently and
universally trained or primed for both the ladder and lattice roles. Their ability to do so has
larger implications for access and upward mobility, particularly for staff members who come
from marginalized communities. If YDPs truly are what Schein (2004) described as the
subculture of the field. Then, the lack of resources attributed to educational and work-based
learning opportunities for YDPs may be sending a message regarding a sub-conscious disregard
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 127
for the professionals in the field, but also a continuity in the systems of oppression that exist in
some of the communities served by youth development organizations.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The evaluation included below is rooted in the implementation and evaluation plan
posited by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), which suggests that organizations are able to
effectively evaluate their systems and practices, once clear goals are established. These goals are
in turn utilized to connect the leading indicators of the problems and the proposed solutions.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) employs three core
steps. The initial action is to develop a solution to the identified problem based on assessment of
frequently cited work behaviors. The subsequent stages of the evaluation process are compiling
the indicators that learning has occurred and connecting the identified solutions to the
organizational goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Approaching the process in this way
allows staff members to be more engaged in the solutions because they feel integrated into the
process.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The CYDO is a non-profit organization working to enable young people to become civic-
minded and academically sound leaders with a plan for the future through targeted afterschool
and summer programming. Although the organization has several goals, this evaluation focused
on the goal of increasing program quality by identifying staff competencies and practices that
yield optimum impact for youth by the year 2025. Meeting this goal depends on YDPs. This
project evaluated the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence the
problem of limited educational and work-based learning opportunities for YDPs. There are two
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 128
recommended solutions. The first is to establish job aids and training modules that clearly outline
the competencies of YDPs. These tools will also support a scope and sequence of training
offered to these individuals. The second solution is to reframe public consciousness, operational
budgets and fundraising initiatives to increase funding for ongoing training and potentially shift
the youth development role from part-time to full-time status.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 25 shows the proposed Level 4 results and leading indicators that affect CYDO’s
interconnected internal and external outcomes. These indicators are presented as outcomes,
metrics and methods. If consistent resources and training are implemented, then the external
outcomes on the greater youth development field can come to fruition.
Table 25
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Clearly identified
competency-based
descriptions for youth
development professionals
across youth organizations.
Universally adopted articulation of
the youth development professional
role and expectations.
Solicit sample job descriptions
from various youth development
organizations. Compare to
competencies recommended by
national intermediary
organizations.
2. Developed scope and
sequence of trainings offered
to youth development
professionals across youth
organizations.
Consistent and effective training
delivery at multiple organizations.
Solicit data from pre and post-
training surveys. Match data to
responses from the staff goal
setting.
3. Improved perception of
the impact of youth
development professionals
across organizations.
3a. Availability of funding
opportunities for youth
development professional work-
based learning and education.
3a. Shift in funding regulations for
21st Century Learning Centers
Access to additional grants.
3b. Different prioritization from
Executive Officers.
3b. Review of annual reports and
mission statements.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 129
Table 25, continued
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
5. Increased self-efficacy
and utility value of
professional learning
opportunities with youth
development staff.
Increased number of individuals
choosing to remain in the field and
attend voluntary educational and
work-based learning sessions.
Aggregate data (Level 3.1) from
team leads and reviewers (self-
report and supervisor confirmation
collected via survey).
6. Increased program
quality.
Staff, parent and youth responses to
the National Youth Outcomes
Survey will indicate increased
satisfaction with programming.
Compare annual survey results.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the YDPs who serve as direct service
providers at out of school time organizations. These employees are different than their peers
previously hired in this role because they were hired using a universally adopted job description
and have engaged in the complete onboarding process. The key components of this onboarding
include the completion of a goal setting document and engagement in pre-identified work-based
learning opportunities. The first critical behavior is that all employees will subscribe to the
competency-based job description. The second critical behavior refers to the act of onboarding
YDPs with a goal setting document. The metrics, methods and proposed timing for the
aforementioned critical behaviors are included in Table 26 below.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 130
Table 26
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Clear articulation of
the roles and
responsibilities of youth
development
professionals in written
human resources
materials will frame
youth development
professionals’
expectations for the
role.
The number of job
postings developed
using a shared
framework
1a. The team lead shall
utilize a competency-
based description based on
organization values
1a. During first 90
days of reviewer’s
employment –
weekly.
Thereafter – monthly,
so long as previously
successful.
2. Onboarded youth
development
professionals complete
goal aspiration
documents
2a. Indication of interest
in pursuing youth
development work as a
profession
2a. Hiring managers will
track completion of form
and review responses with
each staff member
2a. During first 30
days of reviewer’s
employment –
weekly.
Thereafter – monthly,
so long as previously
successful.
2b. Specified training
and development plan
for each new employee
2b. Team Lead shall use
aforementioned goal sheet
to develop a professional
development plan
2b. During first 90
days of reviewer’s
employment –
weekly.
Thereafter – monthly,
so long as previously
successful.
Required drivers. Accountability is important when onboarding a new system because it
provides an incentive for supervisors to follow through with the process. It also allows the
systems and processes to become part of the organizational culture. Shared language and
expectations are promoted through job aids that outline the role and responsibilities of YDPs.
These will be utilized internally and externally. All other materials, including workshop content
and the goal setting documents, should be based on this shared language. Once YDPs engage in
the work-based learning sessions, it is important that they are evaluated on their implementation
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 131
of the key principles learned. Since there are limited financial resources in the field, the positive
evaluations and increased job opportunities will serve as a reward. Table 27 demonstrates the
recommended drivers needed to support the critical behaviors of these employees.
Table 27
Required Drivers to Support New Reviewers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job aid with information outlining
the nature/qualities of an effective
practitioner.
Ongoing 1and 2
Job aid with information that
outlines clearly the scope and
sequence of work-based learning
opportunities.
Ongoing 1 and 2
Onboarding trainings of youth
development professionals should
include a goal setting component as
well as assessments that gauge these
individuals’ interest in the field,
their future learning needs and their
expectations.
Monthly 2
Monitoring
Organization should employ a
performance evaluation process that
tracks goal completion as well as
self-motivation and work ethic.
Quarterly 2
Organizational support. Although job aids and clearly identified competencies will
help support articulation of the parameters of the youth development role, if these tools remain
within CYDO, they become a method of organizational change, not systemic change across the
industry. This could render these recommendations effective on a short-term basis, but ultimately
ineffective to the progression of the field. It is also important that out of school time
organizations identify funding to support educational and work-based learning opportunities.
Competency-based job descriptions will position organizations to attract candidates who have a
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 132
clear understanding of the work. This will, in turn, require hiring managers to gauge employees’
interest in pursuing a career in youth development practice, and subsequently require sequential
training and development. Although, funding doesn’t currently exist for these learning
opportunities, once organizations make this a priority, development teams can leverage grant and
foundation options to support these initiatives. This approach may require the re-definition of
the “public consciousness” of what it means to be an educator.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, the stakeholders
will be able to
1. Identify the shared competencies for effective YDPs (DC)
2. Understand their competency-based job descriptions and human resource materials
during their onboarding process (DC)
3. Complete a goal setting document that outlines their professional aspirations and interests
(P)
4. Identify a scope and sequence of educational and work-based learning opportunities that
must be completed (DF)
5. Express interest in pursuing growth and development opportunities (M)
6. Acknowledge that educational and work-based learning opportunities are connected to
increased career trajectories (Value)
7. Value that increased professional capabilities increase program quality and impact
(Value)
Program. The learning goals in the prior section outline the key components of an
organizational process and program that could increase the educational and work-based learning
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 133
opportunities for YDPs. As indicated in Chapter Two, the out of school time sector has failed to
adopt a universal set of competencies for the youth development field. This is partially due to the
history of the industry, but also due to some subtle organizational factors that devalue the role.
The initial step of the program will be to create a universal set of competencies for YDPs that
would be adopted by the organization. These competencies will be utilized to develop job
descriptions and will be the framework for all human resource documents and lexicon used
across the organization. It is also the hope that, if the scope of the youth worker role is articulated
well, it will attract candidates to the position who have a genuine interest in serving young
people in that capacity. Once these tools are adopted across CYDO, the organization must
prioritize becoming an advocate for these definitions being adopted by the entire sector. This
requires the engagement of public officials, school administrators, parents and a variety of social
impact organizations.
Onboarding YDPs is integral to the proposed program because doing so sets the
framework for how these individuals are inducted into the culture of their work and the
organization. Research indicates that, although administrators understand the importance of
increasing learning opportunities for youth workers, they struggle with securing funding for
these initiatives (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Yohalem et al.,
2010). Due to limited funding, it is important the recently hired YDPs complete a goal setting
document. This document will ask them to list their goals and aspirations for their career. Even if
they are not interested in remaining in the out of school time sector, it is incumbent on the
supervising leadership to ensure that each learning experience these employees embark on
connects to their goals. For those interested in staying in the field, review of these goal setting
sheets will allow administrators to offer work-based learning and educational opportunities that
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 134
develop these professionals’ skills. The ladder and lattice description of careers in the field,
should also be gradually introduced during this process. It is one area in which all interview
respondents agreed additional information and knowledge was necessary.
For the aforementioned goal setting process to be successful, leaders within out of school
time organizations will need to develop a scope and sequence of learning opportunities that are
essential for YDPs to be successful. Once developed, it will be important for leaders to schedule
this training while intermittently reviewing the goal setting sheets. All measurable goals and
accountability included in annual performance reviews should map back to the key learning
objectives from these sessions. Mastery of the goals will also be used as a measure of future
career opportunities within the organization.
Components of learning. The process of learning is ongoing and includes different
components of knowledge. To solve new problems using new learning and understanding, it is
important to ensure that all employees demonstrate their internalization of declarative
knowledge. Thompson and Shockley (2013) found that YDPs enter their careers without
possessing all skills needed for them to be successful. Yet, they are also eager to engage in
additional learning opportunities. This was supported by the findings from this study. Training
provides a method of imparting declarative and procedural knowledge. Therefore, it is important
to evaluate learning at different junctures of employment. Table 28 lists the evaluation methods
and proposed time frame for delivery.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 135
Table 28
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. In the synchronous portions of the learning
opportunities during and after each session.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair,
think, share” and other individual/group
activities.
Periodically during the in-person workshop
and documented via observation notes.
Knowledge checks for connection between
goals and aspiration documents and learning
opportunities.
Periodically during observations and coaching
sessions.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the asynchronous portions of the work-
based learning modules using scenarios with
multiple-choice items.
In the asynchronous portions of the course at
the end of each module/lesson/unit.
Demonstration in groups and individually of
using the job aids to successfully perform the
skills.
During the workshops. .
Quality of the feedback from peers and
supervisors during quarterly observations.
During the workshops and daily practice.
Individual application of the skills with
authentic growth and development over time.
At the end of the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey asking participants about their level of
proficiency before and after the training.
At the end of the workshop.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’
statements and actions demonstrating that they
see the benefit of what they are being asked to
do.
During the workshop.
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the job.
During the workshop.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
After the course.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 136
Table 28, continued
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using scaled items. Following each module/lesson/unit in the
asynchronous portions of the course.
Discussions following practice and feedback.
During the workshop.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback.
During the workshop.
Create an individual action plan.
During the job onboarding process. Will be
revisited frequently during tenure at the
organization. .
Level 1: Reaction
Table 29
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation by instructor/facilitator During the workshop
Participation in small group activities,
including journaling, role plays and
presentations
During the workshop
Attendance During the workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Relevance
Utilization of skills during planned
observations and feedback session (ongoing)
After every module/lesson/unit and the
workshop
During daily practice
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing)
After every module/lesson/unit and the
workshop
Course evaluation Two weeks after the course.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 137
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation and prior to engaging in each in-
person workshop, the participants will be asked to complete an opening questionnaire. This tool
is designed to provide the facilitator with information about those attending the training as well
as gauge their initial understanding of the topic. It is the hope that, during the first planned
activity, the instructor has the opportunity to review the participants’ responses and can adjust
the content as necessary. While this is not connected to the levels of the New World Kirkpatrick
model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), it can lend itself to achieving Level 2, which is
learning.
To address the achievement of Levels 2 and 3, all training attendees should complete the
post-training survey. The data collected from these responses will both indicate whether
attendees were engaged in the sessions, it will also demonstrate whether participants feel as
though learning has happened. This data is important because if participants feel empowered and
the material resonates, then they are more inclined to try some of the techniques acquired in the
session (Barlow et al., 2014; Simon et al., 2011).
The content application questionnaire is designed to be conducted by direct supervisors
during program observations and quarterly meetings with staff members. This tool can be used to
assess the attainment of Levels 3 and 4. Data collected from this tool can be used to influence
future iterations of the training and help support YDPs’ goal setting.
After program implementation, the post-training survey and content application
questionnaire, which are evaluative instruments, can be used to measure participants’
understanding of the session and their ability to apply the content in their practice.
Approximately 30 days after the session, leaders will be required to observe the YDPs who
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 138
attended the workshop. It is the understanding that the scope of trainings proposed are all
necessary for the individuals to be successful in their roles. Supervisors will review the
aggregated results from the post-training survey. Using the questionnaire, they will engage in a
coaching session that will allow them to understand the relevance participants attached to the
information (Level 1), their confidence levels (Level 2), the perceived change in behavior (Level
3), and the ability for them to apply the information and inadvertently strengthen program quality
(Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of improving program quality through strengthened skills can be
measured by the average daily attendance (ADA) of youth members and their reports of
engagement and satisfaction on the National Youth Outcomes Initiative. On a monthly basis, the
membership administrators will be able to run reports on members’ attendance. ADA could be
represented in a table. Increases and decreases in these numbers could also be represented in a
pie chart or bar graph. It will also be important to compare the ADA of youth who have been
served by trained YDPs and that of youth who were not. These data points should also be utilized
during the content application interviews.
__________________ Site
Average Daily
Attendance (ADA)
Dashboard
Goal ADA Results
for Quarter 1
ADA Results
for Quarter 2
ADA Results
for Quarter 3
ADA Results
for Quarter 4
Youth attend CYDO
programs at least 3
times a week
100% XX XX XX XX
Youth attend CYDO
programs 5 times a
week
85% XX XX XX XX
Figure 9. Average Daily Attendance Dashboard.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 139
Figure 10. Yearly Tracking of Average Daily Attendance Results for All CYDO
Organizations.
Figure 11. Comparison of ADA of Trained and Untrained Youth Development
Professionals.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) proposes that data
analysis and reporting is an ongoing process. As organizations evolve and implement new
systems, it is essential that decisions are made based on continuous evaluation measures
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Yet, these processes often yield too much information that
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 140
needs to be sorted through, prioritized and aligned to outcomes. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s
(2016) model was used to inform the proposed implementation plan, which should aid in the
sorting of information. This study explored the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors
that limit YDPs’ access to educational and work-based learning opportunities. While it could be
assumed that the solution is solely financial, the data indicates that there are other factors that
influence this topic (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Yohalem et al.,
2010). The proposed program includes practices that address all four levels of the
aforementioned model.
As referenced in the literature review, the out of school time sector has struggled with
defining a universal set of competencies (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003; Stone et al.,
2005), which has resulted in a lack of clarity around the work. The initial step in tackling the
issue of limited learning opportunities is to develop a competency-based job description for
YDPs. This job aid will set the framework for how the organization externally and internally
perceives the role. This is a critical behavior shift that could potentially affect training and the
level of candidates who apply for the position. It also imparts the organization with declarative
knowledge that all can internalize in the cultural practices of the organization.
Understanding the employees that enter an organization and their motivation behind the
work is critical to the next level of the proposed plan. An additional job aid will support the
onboarding of staff. This goal setting document will request that YDPs state their goals,
aspirations and interest in the field. Managers will use this information to propose a scope and
sequence of training that employees in this role should attend. This process speaks to the survey
and interview results that indicated that YDPs are invested in their current roles, but dissatisfied
with the career options available. The options for career advancement are expanding. It is
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 141
essential that managers find diverse ways to communicate that to their YDPs. The goal setting
sheet could be an option. Although the particular trainings required for YDPs are not outlined in
this plan, the concept of implementing a training evaluation plan is supported by the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Before one can assess the adoption of
declarative knowledge, it is important for facilitators to conduct an initial assessment of all
training attendees. The data collected through this opening questionnaire will allow the
instructor to adjust the learning to meet the needs of participants. It is the hope that this will
ensure that Level 2 learning occurs.
Immediately following each recommended training session, the post-training survey will
be distributed. This evaluation tool addresses Level 1 and 2 of the model. It assesses YDPs’
reaction, particularly their engagement with the material and satisfaction with attending the
learning session. Their understanding of the relevance of the content will influence Level 3
learning. This plan relies on the assumption that, if YDPs achieve Level 1, they will use some of
the new skills in their everyday practice. This shift in critical behavior will ultimately achieve
Level 4, which is the improvement of program quality. Research indicates that offering
educational and work-based learning opportunities to youth workers increases the impact of
programs and daily attendance (Little et al., 2008). Level 4 is most easily classified as an
increase in ADA.
The supervisor, in their quarterly observations, conducts the final level of evaluation.
Using the content application questionnaire, managers are continuously assessing and observing
content application. Their feedback could influence pay increases and promotions, which is an
incentive for YDPs who are primarily part-time workers. For the organization to be transparent
about the impact of this plan, the information must be represented to the entire community using
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 142
tables and charts. It is the hope that this sharing of data creates a culture of continuous quality
improvement.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
This study utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to explore the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence the limited educational and
work-based learning opportunities available to YDPs. This methodological approach was
selected because of the complexity of the topic and the non-traditional nature of the out of school
time sector. This was done with the understanding that there were some strengths and
weaknesses embedded in the model and application of the approach that would affect the
outcome of the study. This section explores the strengths and weaknesses of using this approach
to examine the research questions.
The Clark and Estes (2008) model was an ideal methodology to use because the literature
indicated that the out of school time field had yet to adopt a universal set of competencies for
YDPs (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003; Stone et al., 2005). This was often attributed to
the lack of consistency of professional development opportunities offered to these individuals.
This reality can be described as a knowledge gap. Therefore, it was important to identify what
was actually known or disseminated by all stakeholders. Another strength of this model is the
ability to explore motivational factors. From the literature, it is apparent that there is large
turnover in the youth development field. The nature of the position being part-time as well as the
hours of the role and poor compensation of staff establishes a number of barriers to YDPs being
privy to additional learning opportunities (Harris, 2014; Thompson & Shockley, 2013; Travis,
2010). Yet, the literature also describes these individuals as being interested in learning more
about how to improve their daily practice (Edwards et al., 2010).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 143
Understanding what motivates YDPs needed to be at the root of any recommendations
proposed to address this problem of practice. Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework provided a
method for exploring these factors. The out of school time sector is an industry comprised of a
number of different types of organizations. The youth development field has been characterized
as the first child development industry in the United States (Borden & Perkins, 2006; Halpern,
2002; Schneider, 1993). Youth development work is more than a field; it is an institution. Clark
and Estes (2008) posited that organizations steadily evolve over time. There are both conscious
and sub-conscious principles that influence their governing structure and affect how employees
carry out their responsibilities. As society has evolved over time, the purpose of out of school
time organizations has also changed (Schneider, 1993). Any recommendations proposed to
solving a systemic issue must consider the organizational context, so that the solutions resonate
with the field (Clark & Estes, 2008). The focus on knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences was a strength of this study. It also allowed some important themes to emerge around
the benefits of employing a systemic approach to education and work-based learning as well as
the ladder/lattice options in career advancement. Findings also intimated that there are
subconscious messages that are transmitted to YDPs through organizational practices that may
also be pervasive in the general public’s consciousness.
A significant weakness to using Clark and Estes’ (2008) approach is that it does not make
allowances for the diversity across the CYDO enterprise and the out of school time industry. As
a federated network, CYDO is unable to directly influence the leadership, focal points and
governing bodies of its members. The aggregated results garnered through the NYOI survey
provide a macro level perspective on the member organizations, but the results of this study
cannot be applied to individual organizations due to the variations in location, budget and staff
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 144
configuration. This weakness also reinforces the recommendations for CYDO to emerge as an
advocacy organization. Through this role, the organization has the greatest ability to impact
change.
Another weakness in this study is the utilization of the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) to frame recommendations. This methodology relies on
assessment, training, and evaluation to address performance gaps. Since the overall study was
focused on YDPs’ access to educational and work-based learning opportunities, it may seem
intuitive that the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) would
provide the best foundation for brainstorming solutions to the problem. Yet, that is not
completely accurate. The framework supports the details for how to compose and implement the
trainings once identified, but it does not support finding solutions for the organizational factors
that affect the context in which the problem of practice exists. Based on the findings of this
study, addressing the organizational context of YDPs and their respective organizations,
particularly the articulation of the competencies necessary for the role, appears to be the first step
in rectifying this issue.
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation of this study was that the National Youth Outcomes Initiative Survey was
developed by CYDO for the purposes of the organization’s performance evaluation. The
questions included were not specifically defined to address this examination’s research inquiries.
Therefore, there were some questions that were not explicitly answered in the survey data. There
were four interviewees included in this study, which represents half of the CYDO staff members
eligible to offer insight to the pre-determined questions. This reality also serves as a limitation.
Another limitation was that there were no prior studies that explored the topic of limited
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 145
educational and work-based learning opportunities for YDPs, so there were no instruments or
tools that were validated in previous examinations that could be applied to the interviews. It is
important to note that the NYOI survey is a validated and reliable tool.
The researcher serves as an executive officer at one of the CYDO member organization
and is a former employee of CYDO and another local organization. All data received from
CYDO was intentionally aggregated by the organization so that the examiner was unable to
decipher any results from their respective organization or region of the country. The examiner
was also asked to sign a data-sharing agreement that protects CYDO’s confidentiality. Although
these measures were taken, it does not completely mitigate or prevent any researcher bias in the
interpretation of the interview and survey results. Due to the construct of the CYDO federation,
the local organizations are in the position of power. The researcher made every effort to make
interviewees feel comfortable during the interview process. All interview respondents were
asked to inform the examiner if they felt uncomfortable in the conversation or delivering a
response to a question. None of the respondents expressed these sentiments.
A major delimitation of this study pertains to the generalizability of findings and
recommendations. CYDO serves as a national non-profit and major influencer in the out of
school time sector. While many of the results of this study may be applicable to similar
organizations, they may not resonate with smaller organizations that do similar work. The fact
that there is diversity across the CYDO community was referenced above. Conducting this study
using national data versus data from a local organization does mean that the results may not
resonate with all affiliates within the CYDO network.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 146
Future Research
Over the last 20 years, there has been an increase in the accountability of practitioners
across the out of school time field (Borden & Perkins, 2006). This rise in interest has resulted in
researchers exploring the factors that influence program quality, YDP effectiveness and youth
engagement (Astroth & Lindstrom, 2008; Little et al., 2008; Weiss et al., 2005; Yohalem et al.,
2010). While this study focused on the factors that limit access to educational and work-based
learning opportunities, it does not delve into the factors that motivate YDPs to remain in the role.
It is apparent that these individuals have a commitment to the work that is deeper than
compensation or work conditions. Understanding the rationale of YDPs who find the job
fulfilling and continue in the field despite barriers may offer insight into how to improve the
conditions of youth workers and promote longevity in the field.
The findings of this study highlight the lack of public consciousness regarding the
importance of youth development work, and the role that YDPs play in achieving positive
outcomes. Further research should examine the public and private sector’s perception of the out
of school time field. This investigation may provide some insight into why there are not
traditional funding options available for educational advancement and continued learning
opportunities.
All interviewees in this study referenced that there is both a ladder and lattice of career
opportunities in the out of school time field. In addition to the multiple pathways available, there
is also a set of skills that are unique to each role. Central to the recommendations of this study is
the process of identifying the future goals and aspirations of YDPs early in their tenure at their
respective organizations. Future empirical studies should explore the different professions that
exist within the industry and the competencies needed to pursue these opportunities.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 147
Finally, demographic information was collected to offer some depth to the findings. In
the literature, the race and or ethnicities of YDPs did not emerge as a factor that affects upward
mobility or employee perceptions of high-quality practice. These themes surfaced through the
results of this examination. From the profile of the average YDP to the racial/ethnic breakdown
of individuals who serve in leadership roles, it is apparent that race is an important factor in the
experience of youth workers. The demographic information presented in this study is also
counter to the imagery of YDPs presented in the public sphere. The question of whether this
misrepresentation is intentional or the byproduct of a lack of knowledge should be further
explored in empirical studies. Many organizations similar to CYDO pride themselves on
providing employment to former members of their organizations and community residents.
YDPs that are former participants, serve as a poignant characterization of the cyclic nature of
youth work. Offering YDPs employment that does not promote upward mobility or skill
development is counter to the mission of out of school time organizations and could potentially
serve as a continuation of systems oppression. Youth development organizations should make it
a priority to ensure that they are not subconsciously perpetuating negative cycles in the
community.
Conclusion
This study examined the factors that affect YDPs’ access to educational and work-based
learning opportunities using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework as the conceptual
and methodological foundation. Findings from the 2017 National Youth Outcomes Initiative and
the interviews conducted confirmed a lack of understanding of the competencies YDPs need to
be effective. Therefore, individuals enter the field highly motivated, but they do not receive the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 148
learning experiences necessary to improve their practice or adequately prepare for program
implementation.
Although not articulated in the organization’s public materials, the 70/20/10 learning
model is widely utilized across the field. This suggests that CYDO employees at the national and
local levels believe that 10% of learning is promoted through formal learning experiences while
20% is relayed through mentorship and supervision. The majority of learning is thought to occur
through daily practice. This may explain why a large percentage of participants reported
coaching and supervision as the most frequently received training. Survey results indicated that
this guidance is offered without a firm understanding of the competencies that need to be
developed or a clear scope and sequence of the order in which learning opportunities need to be
delivered to ensure understanding and internalization.
All interviewees asserted the YDP role is central to CYDO’s ability to achieve its goals,
objectives and mission, as they are described as the leaders and “mission bearers.” Improving
access to educational and work-based learning opportunities is essential to ensuring program
quality. Yet, this priority cannot only rest within the organization; it needs to be adopted by the
entire sector. CYDO is well positioned to be a public advocate for industry-wide competencies
for YDPs. They can also serve as leaders in the discourse on securing funding to support this
initiative, but addressing this issue may involve altering how the field exists in the public
consciousness. The results of this study also demonstrate a significant decrease in the number of
YDPs who serve in the role past their second year. By implementing the solutions recommended
in this project, CYDO can actively recruit and retain YDPs in both the field and the sector. This
dynamic has a large impact on the effectiveness of CYDO organizations. It will also allow the
organization to bring their youth development work full circle.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 149
REFERENCES
Afterschool Alliance. (2014). America after 3PM: Afterschool programs in demand.
Washington, DC: Author.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2003). The unsolved challenge of system reform: The condition
of the frontline human services workforce. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Astroth, K., & Lindstrom, J. (2008). Investing in professional development: Building and
sustaining a viable 4-H youth workforce for the future. Journal of Youth Development,
3(2), 1–13. Retrieved from http://jyd.pitt.edu/ojs/jyd/article/view/303/289.
Attard, K. (2012). The role of narrative writing in improving professional practice. Educational
Action Research, 20(1), 161-175.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/metacognition/
Barlow, A. T., Frick, T. M., Barker, H. L., & Phelps, A. J. (2014). Modeling instruction: The
impact of professional development on instructional practices. Science Educator, 23(1),
14–26.
Baron, K. (2015, January). Shaking the money tree: Sources for after-school funding [blog post].
Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/time_and_learning/2015/01/the_growth_
in_after_school.html
Borden, L., & Perkins, D. (2006). Community youth development professionals: Providing the
necessary supports in the United States. Child & Youth Care Forum,35(2), 101–158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-005-9005-4
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 150
Bowie, L., & Bronte-Tinkew, J. (2006). The importance of professional development for youth
workers. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2006/12/child_trends-2007_06_15_rb_prodevel.pdf
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Consortium of Youth Development Organizations. (2017). Measuring the Impact of consortium
of youth development organizations: 2016 Outcomes report. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Cottrell, D. (Producer). (2005). Setting the stage for school-age care: A history of after school
programs [Video file]. Magna Systems. Retrieved from Academic Video Online:
Premium.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality. (2018). David P. Weikart Center for Youth
Program Quality approach. Retrieved from http://www.cypq.org/about/approach.
Desimone, L., Smith, T., & Ueno, K. (2006). Are teachers who need sustained, content-focused
professional development getting it? An administrator’s dilemma. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04273848
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 151
Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective
identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78-89.
Evans, W. P., Sicafuse, L. L., Killian, E. S., Davidson, L. A., & Loesch-Griffin, D. (2010).
Youth worker professional development participation, preferences, and agency support.
Child and Youth Services, 31(1–2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459350903505579
Farmer-Hinton, R. L., Sass, D. A., & Schroeder, M. (2009). What difference does an hour make?
Examining the effects of an after school program. Planning and Changing, 40(3/4), 160.
Fink, A. (2003b). How to manage, analyze, and interpret survey data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984454
Gambone, M. A., Yu, H. C., Lewis-Charp, H., Sipe, C. L., & Lacoe, J. (2006). Youth organizing,
identity-support, and youth development agencies as avenues for involvement. Journal of
Community Practice, 14(1–2), 235–253.
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London, UK: SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208574.n4.
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.
Grossman, J. B., Lind, C., Hayes, C., McMaken, J., & Gersick, A. (2009). The cost of quality
out-of-school-time programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution. The history of afterschool
programs for low-income children. Teachers College, 104(2), 178–211.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00160
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 152
Harris, P. (2014). The youth worker as jazz improviser: Foregrounding education ‘in the
moment’ within the professional development of youth workers. Professional
Development in Education, 40(4), 654–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.
2014.902858
Hart, R. (1994). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. New York, NY:
Earthscan.
Huebner, A., Walker, J., & McFarland, M. (2003). Staff development for the youth development
professional: A critical framework for understanding the work. Youth & Society, 35(2),
204–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X03255024
Johnson, E., Rothstein, F., & Gajdosik, J. (2004). The intermediary role in youth worker
professional development: Successes and challenges. New Directions for Youth
Development, 2004(104), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.98
Kadzielski, M. A. (1977). As a flower needs sunshine: The origins of organized children's
recreation in Philadelphia, 1886-1911. Journal of Sport History, 4(2), 169–188.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kremer, K. P., Maynard, B. R., Polanin, J. R., Vaughn, M. G., & Sarteschi, C. M. (2015). Effects
of after-school programs with at-risk youth on attendance and externalizing behaviors: a
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 153
systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(3), 616–636.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0226-4
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L.
(2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students.
Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002275
Lauver, S. C., & Little, P. (2005). Recruitment and retention strategies for out ‐ of ‐ school ‐ time
programs. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2005(105), 71-89.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and
interpretation (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Academic Press.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of
professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591–596.
Little, P., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H. B. (2008). After school programs in the 21st century: Their
potential and what it takes to achieve it. Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time
evaluation, 10, (1–12).
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 154
Morrison, E., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review 25(4), 706–725.
National Afterschool Association. (2011). Core knowledge and competencies for afterschool and
youth development professionals. McLean, VA: Author.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9303-3
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
S. D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation (2018). S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation Stephen Bechtel Fund.
Retrieved from http://sdbjrfoundation.org
The Search Institute for Consortium of Youth Development Organizations. (2005). Deepening
impact through quality youth development strategies and practices. Retrieved from
https://www.bgca.net/Operations/DCM/RAE/RAEDocLib/DeepeningImpactthrough
YouthDevelopment2005Report.pdf
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 155
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schneider, E. C. (1993). In the web of class: Delinquents and reformers in Boston, 1810s-1930s
(No. 22). New York: NYU Press.
Schraw, G., Veldt, M., & Olafson, L. (2009). Knowledge. Education.com. Retrieved September
11, 2012, from www.education.com/reference/article/knowledge/
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Shockley, C., & Thompson, A. (2012). Youth workers in college: A replicable model for
professional development. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 735–739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.12.019
Shuell, T. (2006). Theories of learning. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/theories-of-learning/
Simon, S., Campbell, S., Johnson, S., & Stylianidou, F. (2011) Characteristics of effective
professional development for early career science teachers. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 29(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2011.543798
Stone, B., Garza, P., & Borden, L. (2005). Attracting, developing and retaining youth workers
for the next generation. Tucson: The University of Arizona.
Travis, R. (2010). What they think: Attributions made by youth workers about youth
circumstances and implications for service-delivery in out-of-school time programs.
Child Care Youth Forum, 39, 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9114-6
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 156
Thompson, A., & Shockley, C. (2013) Developing youth workers: Career ladders for sector
stability. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(2013) 447–452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.12.019
Warfield-Coppock, N. (1992). The rites of passage movement: A resurgence of African-centered
practices for socializing African American youth. The Journal of Negro Education, 61(4),
471–482. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295365
Weiss, H. B., Little, P., & Bouffard, S. M. (2005). More than just being there: Balancing the
participation equation. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2005(105), 15–31.
Wheelan, C. (2010). Naked economics: Undressing the dismal science. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Yohalem, N., Pittman, K., & Edwards, S. (2010). Strengthening the youth development/after-
school workforce: The Forum for Youth Investment. Houston, TX: Cornerstones for Kids.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 157
APPENDIX A Survey
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 158
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 159
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 160
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 161
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 162
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 163
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 164
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 165
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 166
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 167
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 168
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 169
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 170
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 171
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 172
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 173
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol
1. Please tell me a little bit about yourself, particularly your educational and professional
background.
2. How many careers have you had in your adult (post-18-years-old) life?
3. During your career (s) what types of formal learning opportunities have you experienced
that have allowed you to grow and develop?
4. How long have you been involved or connected to the CYDO Movement?
a. In what capacity (ies)?
5. Please describe the overall goal/objectives of your working group or team?
6. What role do youth development professionals (front-line staff) play in helping you
achieve the goals of your team?
7. How would you describe the role of a youth development professional to someone who
was not familiar with CYDO or similar organizations?
8. What skills do you think are important for youth development professionals to possess?
9. From your perspective, do you think that they enter into the field equipped with these
skills?
a. If not, whose responsibility is it to help them develop them?
10. From your experience, what resources are in place to develop these individuals?
a. Are they sufficient?
b. Are they consistent?
c. Who funds them?
d. Do all local organizations have access to them? Why or Why not?
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 174
11. What barriers are in place to delivering these learning opportunities to youth development
professionals?
a. What are your recommendations for overcoming these challenges?
b. Whose responsibility is it to mitigate these challenges?
12. How would you describe the career trajectory in the youth development field?
a. Is it clearly defined?
b. If not, what would allow it to be clearer to staff at all levels?
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 175
APPENDIX C
Survey Demographic Data
Q2a. How many hours per week do you
spend on site at the affiliate?
N %
Less than 15 hours per
week
983 17.6
15-29 hours per week 3848 68.9
30 hours or more per
week
756 13.5
Q3. What is your age?
N %
18-29 years old 4091 73.2
30-45 years old 906 16.2
46-55 years old 334 6.0
56 years or older 256 4.6
Q4. How much experience do you have
serving youth in a professional
capacity?
N %
Less than one year 874 15.6
1-2 years 1480 26.5
3-4 years 1390 24.9
5-9 years 959 17.2
10-19 years 586 10.5
20+ years 298 5.3
Q5. Regardless of position, how long
have you worked at the site?
N %
Less than one year 2497 44.7
1-2 years 1524 27.3
3-4 years 885 15.8
5-9 years 464 8.3
10-19 years 172 3.1
20+ years 45 0.8
D1. How do you describe yourself?
N %
Male 1986 35.5
Female 3552 63.6
Different Identity 33 0.6
Multiple Identities 16 0.3
D2. What is your race/ethnicity?
N %
Black or African
American
1696 30.4
Asian 94 1.7
White 1866 33.4
Hispanic or Latino 1044 18.7
American Indian or
Alaska Native
83 1.5
Two or more races/
ethnicities
523 9.4
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 176
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
54 1.0
Other 227 4.1
D3. What is the highest educational
level you have attained?
N %
Current high school
student
182 3.3
Some high school 26 0.5
High school diploma or
GED
748 13.4
Current student at
technical/vocational
school
37 0.7
Current college student 1731 31.0
Some college 911 16.3
Associate's degree 475 8.5
Bachelor's degree 991 17.7
Current graduate student 108 1.9
Some graduate school 84 1.5
Graduate degree (e.g.
MBA, MD, PhD, etc.)
294 5.3
D4. Are you a former affiliate member?
N %
No 3966 71.0
Yes 1621 29.0
Abridged Profiles of White, Black, and Hispanic Women YDPs at CYDO
Race/Ethnicity
Abridged items White Black Hispanic
Sample size 1,271 1,009 696
YDP Site Region Midwest Southeast Pacific
Community Location Suburban/Urban Urban Urban
D3. Highest educational level attained Current college
student
Current college
student
Current college
student
D4. Former club membership No No No
Q2a. Hours per week spent on site 15 to 29 hrs 15 to 29 hrs 15 to 29 hrs
Q3. Age 18 to 29 yrs old 18 to 29 yrs old 18 to 29 yrs old
Q4. Years of experience directly serving youth 3-4 yrs 3-4 yrs 1-2 yrs
Q5. Years working on-site Less than 1 yr Less than 1 yr Less than 1 yr
Q8. Satisfaction with current position 3.9 (0.86) 3.8 (0.92) 3.8 (0.88)
Q9. Satisfaction level with…
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 177
a. Colleague interpersonal relationships 4.0 (0.91) 4.0 (0.91) 4.0 (0.91)
b. Superiors interpersonal relationships 3.9 (1.00) 3.9 (1.02) 3.9 (1.03)
c. Youth interpersonal relationships 4.3 (0.71) 4.2 (0.79) 4.2 (0.72)
d. Career advancement opportunities 3.3 (1.16) 3.4 (1.19) 3.3 (1.13)
e. Job training 3.6 (1.08) 3.8 (1.05) 3.6 (1.05)
f. Recognition 3.7 (1.16) 3.7 (1.11) 3.6 (1.17)
g. Job security 4.0 (0.95) 3.8 (1.01) 3.8 (0.97)
Q20; Q21. Training received; Found beneficial
a. Orientation or onboarding for new staff 82%; 3.8 (1.01) 74%; 4.1 (0.90) 75%; 4.0 (0.88)
b. Online computer-based sessions 46%; 3.3 (1.13) 47%; 3.9 (0.98) 40%; 3.7 (1.04)
c. Formal classroom training 46%; 4.0 (0.92) 50%; 4.2 (0.80) 45%; 4.1 (0.86)
d. Peer observation and coaching 51%; 4.1 (0.81) 48%; 4.2 (0.84) 51%; 4.3 (0.74)
e. Supervisor observation and coaching 68%; 4.2 (0.79) 70%; 4.3 (0.80) 60%; 4.3 (0.75)
f. Annual PD plan with supervisor 30%; 4.0 (0.89) 35%; 4.3 (0.78) 33%; 4.2 (0.80)
g. Regular meetings with supervisor on
PD plan
47%; 4.2 (0.85) 62%; 4.3 (0.83) 56%; 4.3 (0.77)
Q22. Works with; Confidence designing for…
a. Ages 6-9 90%; 4.4 (0.77) 85%; 4.5 (0.69) 89%; 4.4 (0.76)
b. Ages 10-12 88%; 4.3 (0.81) 89%; 4.4 (0.76) 86%; 4.3 (0.82)
c. Ages 13-15 59%; 3.9 (1.04) 68%; 4.2 (0.94) 65%; 3.9 (1.06)
d. Ages 16-18 45%; 3.5 (1.22) 56%; 4.0 (1.10) 51%; 3.6 (1.23)
Q23. Time spent preparing for club activities Less than 1 hr 1-2 hrs 1-2 hrs
Q25. Identification with member experiences 3.3 (1.02) 3.8 (1.12) 3.8 (1.12)
Q26. Staff-to-member ratio 11-15 youth 11-15 youth 16-20 youth
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses beside means. All means range from 1 (lowest attribute) to 5
(highest attribute).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS 178
Comparisons of Satisfaction Means Across Hours on Site per Week for Q9d-g
Assumed Cause
Hours on Site per Week
Q9 Overall Less than 15 15 to 29 30 or more F p
d. Career advancement
opportunities
3.3
(1.18)
3.5
(1.14)
3.3
(1.19)
3.2
(1.17)
13.79 .000
e. Job training 3.7
(1.08)
3.8
(1.07)
3.6
(1.08)
3.6
(1.11)
8.05 .000
f. Recognition 3.7
(1.14)
3.8
(1.09)
3.6
(1.15)
3.5
(1.13)
16.24 .000
g. Job security 3.9
(0.99)
4.0
(0.97)
3.9
(0.99)
3.8
(1.00)
15.83 .000
Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with establishing educational and work-based learning opportunities for youth development professionals. This project employed a mixed-method data collection and analysis approach. These professionals’ current understanding of their role and the current educational and learning opportunities available to them were assessed through surveys and interviews. Survey results revealed that a high percentage of respondents expressed satisfaction in their roles and dissatisfaction in their career prospects within the organization. Youth workers also confirm they receive limited in-person and online training but find coaching and supervision from their managers beneficial. A high percentage also indicated they have fewer than two hours of weekly planning time. Interviews were used to triangulate survey results. While there are several learning experiences available, local youth development professionals are not accessing them readily. Interviews provided insight into the competencies essential to the role and the variety of resources available to front-line staff members. Participants provided recommendations for tangible approaches to expanding the career trajectory of youth workers and advocated for systemic solutions to address the barriers to advanced work-based learning. The implications of this study have a direct impact on the administrative and programmatic constructs of the out of school time sector. This study culminates with an explanation of context-based solutions grounded in the literature, study results, and the New World Kirkpatrick Model, in addition to an evaluation and implementation plan and recommendations for future research.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study
PDF
Considerations for personalized professional learning at International Academy of South East Asia: a gap analysis
PDF
Keeping principals at the top of the class: an innovation study of principal leadership, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of leadership development
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study
PDF
A gap analysis of the community school: an evaluation of the implementation of self-directed learning
PDF
The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness
PDF
Success factors for global virtual team leaders: a qualitative study of leaders of global virtual teams in a global professional service firm employing grounded theory
PDF
The rich auntie effect: increasing socioeconomic advancement for opportunity youth of color
PDF
Judaic/Israel studies curriculum for the 21st-century learner – An innovation study
PDF
Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations
PDF
Evaluating the teacher residency model: a new first way
PDF
Dream deferred? Understanding the effects of educational debt on marginalized college professionals
PDF
Modern corporate learning requires a modern design methodology: an innovation study
PDF
Principals' perceptions of their ability, as school leaders, to apply learning from district-provided professional development
PDF
E-TECH professional development: a Mountain View University initiative
PDF
Developing partnerships between education providers and Fortune 500 companies to increase the utilization of tuition assistance and quality digital education: an innovation study
PDF
Getting paid: the promise of paid work-based learning opportunities for youth
PDF
Exploring the effectiveness of continuing medical education for physicians enrolled in an MBA program
Asset Metadata
Creator
Angbah, Jaynemarie Enyonam
(author)
Core Title
Bringing youth development full circle: exploring limited educational and work-based learning opportunities for youth development professionals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
04/10/2018
Defense Date
03/05/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
afterschool programs,OAI-PMH Harvest,out of school time (OST),training and professional development,youth development professionals,youth development programs,youth workers
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hyde, Corinne E. (
committee chair
), Bateman, Jennifer K. (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
angbah@usc.edu,angbahja@post.harvard.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-8561
Unique identifier
UC11671932
Identifier
etd-AngbahJayn-6199.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-8561 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AngbahJayn-6199.pdf
Dmrecord
8561
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Angbah, Jaynemarie Enyonam
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
afterschool programs
out of school time (OST)
training and professional development
youth development professionals
youth development programs
youth workers