Duration: 10/01/2001 to 09/30/2005

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

After-school hours are times of great risk for unsupervised youth, and parents need safe alternatives for their youth. During unsupervised time youth are more likely to become injured, engage in drug or alcohol consumption, or engage in other delinquent behaviors (Carnegie Foundation, 1992). In addition, youth today have more discretionary time than ever before in America. Often this discretionary time is not spent in constructive activities rather it is spent on watching television, talking on the telephone with friends, and playing computer games (Perkins & Borden, in press). Parents and communities concerned about the safety and well being of their youth turn to out-of-school alternatives as a way to address the needs of the youth, their parents, and the broader community. With parents?busy schedules, transportation difficulties, child-care costs or unavailability, and other economic or time pressures facing families, youth might remain in these unsupervised settings if such alternatives were not available. Given the increasingly important role that these out-of-school activities have in every-day life, it is critical to understand how these activities impact the lives of youth. Unfortunately, there is currently no scientific research that helps parents evaluate the quality of these out-of-school activities. This may be a critical concern, as more federal and state funds will be allocated to create additional out-of-school programs to meet this growing need for their youth to be in supervised settings outside of the home.

Some out-of-school activities may have risks for youth. While there appear to be general benefits for involvement in structured out-of-school experiences, there are concerns that not all activities impact youth positively. For instance, Eccles & Barber (1999) found that youth involvement in pro-social activities, such as faith-based groups or volunteer groups, was linked to higher academic achievement and lower risk behaviors, while involvement in school sports and school related clubs was associated with lower academic achievement and higher risk behaviors. This suggests that considerably more scientific attention must be paid to understanding the key dimensions of structured out-of-school activities that contribute to different types of impacts on youth.

The good news is that structured out-of-school experiences do have unique positive contributions for youth development. It has become increasingly clear that the more assets that youth have, the fewer risk behaviors and the more positive outcomes that youth will have. These assets include things such as a commitment to learning, positive values, social skills, positive identity, family and community support, meaningful roles and empowerment, clear expectations, and constructive use of time (Scales & Leffert, 1999). A key finding is that the time that youth spend in out-of-school programs is a major contributor to the development of these important assets (Scales & Leffert, 1999). Compared to family and community factors, time spent in youth programs was found to be the most consistent predictor of youth thriving which included students?school performance, their ability to overcome adversity, their effort to help others, their provision of leadership qualities, and their efforts to maintain good physical health (Sales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000). Furthermore, youth have been found to experience the highest levels of simultaneous motivation and concentration when they are in structured out-of-school experiences rather than when they are in school or with peers (Larson, 2000). This suggests that structured out-of-school experiences need to be scientifically examined for their impact on youth outcomes with the same attention that has been given to family, school, and community factors.

Many positive qualities of the structured-out-of school experiences have been observed, but it is unclear how these qualities directly interact with the developmental tasks during adolescence. Youth workers and researchers have observed many different positive aspects to these activities and programs for youth. These settings have been thought to offer youth the opportunity to explore their self-identity; accomplish goals; solve problems in a real world context; develop personal social networks; learn and practice new physical, social, and intellectual skills; make decisions; test out new roles; receive affirmation; have boundaries clearly enforced; be respected; and have opportunity to develop and express passion and creativity (Eccles & Barber 1999; Hart; 1992; Whalen & Wynn; 1995; Zeldin; 1995). These structured out-of-school activities also provide opportunities for youth to have meaningful connections to their communities (Zeldin, 2000) and other adults (Camino, 2000). In fact, some out-of-school experiences were found to be critical to helping immigrant youth successfully adapt to their new culture (Roffman, Suarez-Orozco, & Rhodes, in press).

Youth from different backgrounds and types of communities have different needs for structured out-of-school experiences and these needs are not well understood. Youth of different ages, backgrounds, and communities have barriers to involvement in these out-of-school experiences (Quinn, 1999). There may be particular challenges for youth and families in rural and urban low-income areas because of lack of opportunities (Huber & Kossek, 1999; Markstrom, 1999). Not all communities or organizations have the same resources to offer youth. Low-income communities offer fewer opportunities and have transportation barriers that may limit the quality or accessibility of out-of-school experiences for youth in many areas. These resource deficits may be particularly important in light of changing demographic and economic conditions in rural and urban communities. Historically, extended kinship networks have provided support and supervision of children in rural communities; however, more families are working outside the home and relying on outside programs to care for children. Children in declining urban middle cities may also have fewer opportunities for quality out-of-school programming as economic conditions decline and resources fade. Additionally, urban and rural communities are becoming more diverse and needing to understand how to respond to the out-of-school needs of youth and their families from a variety of backgrounds.

A developmental approach is needed to understand youth development in the context of these different community conditions. Changing community conditions and individual youth developmental changes impact participation in activities and both must be understood simultaneously. As youth reach early adolescence, their participation in structured out-of-school activities decreases and generally, youth of color have lower rates of involvement in certain types of activities, although more in others (Quinn, 1999). In order to optimize opportunities for human development, contextually and cultural responsive environments must not only be constructed, but specific attention must be directed toward the development of measures and tools that are parallel the programmatic efforts. In order to facilitate the construction of these measures, a developmental approach must be adopted (Fisher, Jackson, & Villarruel, 1997). The study of adolescents in rural communities and in the structured-out-of-school experiences they engage must adopt a systems level of program, research, and evaluation. In this examination of social network/community and institutional/societal analysis, a developmental contextual perspective can shed light related to how the context contributes to, or inhibits healthy developmental outcomes (Lerner, Villarruel, & Castellino, 1999).

There is a need to understand the importance of community conditions and the reciprocal relationship between youth and communities. Villarruel and Lerner (1994b) have pointed out the need to link childrens development within communities to promote a sense of belonging and enhance learning opportunities. Community-based youth development programs offer opportunities for youth to engage in structured settings that can, and often do contribute to positive developmental outcomes while providing safe settings for adolescents. Simultaneously, these environments encourage positive peer interaction and learning that requires the implementation of four objectives: the promotion of social competence; the development of problem-solving skills; the creation of a sense of autonomy, which allows individuals to develop their identity and ability to act independently and to have an opportunity to exert control over their environment; and the instilling of a sense of purpose and an orientation toward the future (Villarruel & Lerner, 1994a). This is important since there has been a demonstrated lack of fit between what youth need and what adult-dominated settings have to offer youth (Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan, & MacIver, 1993). Youth workers and researchers have noted that youth do not participate equally in these structured out-of-school experiences and that there is a need for more research to develop "culturally sensitive approaches to engage unserved, under-served, and disenfranchised audiences" (United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 2000). Therefore, it is important to understand how characteristics of youth, their families, and their communities impact their desire or ability to participate in various structured out-of-school experiences and how these experiences can be modified to fit the needs of individual youth.

Research is needed to promote the further development of structured out-of-school activities that are available and appropriate for all youth. Overall, it is clear that structured out-of-school experiences can provide very positive benefits for youth. However, there is not body of research to help parents, teachers, students, and communities clearly understand how these experiences contribute to youth development, or why some programs have positive impacts and others have negative impacts for youth. At present, there are no measurement tools available to help researchers or practitioners to measure the quality or experiences in these structured out-of-school settings or how these experiences impact youth in both the short and long-term. There is a demand for the development of such measurement tools that can be used in multiple settings and contexts of youth development to better understand the how structured out-of-school experiences impact youth from different ethnic backgrounds, gender groups, and age groups (Zeldin, 2000). As structured out-of-school experiences continue to play a more central role in the lives of youth and families, it is critical to understand what replicable features of out-of-school youth program settings contribute to the cognitive, physical, social, and moral development of youth and decrease risk behaviors. Such understanding can enable out-of-school experiences to be structured in a way to best address the developmental needs of all youth.

Related, Current and Previous Work

A review of the CRIS database revealed no present research focused on the impact of out of school experiences or activities on positive youth development. Six projects were identified as having a focus on positive youth development, however, none examined out-of-school experiences in relation to this outcome (See Appendix A).

There are also substantial efforts to address this important issue of out-of-time use through the national "Extension Caresfor Americas Children and Youth" research and outreach initiative of the United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services. This initiative focuses on improving the quality and affordability of child care for preschoolers and younger and out-of-school programs for children, youth, and teens (Valentine, 1998). This program emphasizes the importance of quality research as a basis for subsequent training and technical assistance activities. While there have been evaluations linking a variety of outcomes to out-of-school activities, there is a need to link evaluations and outcomes to a strong theoretical base (Weiss, 2000).

The demand for research-based practical information on out-of-school experiences is evidenced by the emergence of web sites devoted to practitioners in this field noted below and in the need for practitioner training (Keith & Perkins, 1998). These sites highlight the wealth of knowledge contained by practitioners, however, there is a gap in information that is based on sound research on how out-of-school settings can contribute to the developmental process. More research is needed on youth development and the people, places, and opportunities through which it occurs. At the same time current research and knowledge must be brought to bear on youth programming and on helping communities become more intentional. Both programs and communities need access to youth development professionals who can engage young people; identify their needs; design, implement, and evaluate programs; and mobilize community efforts to create environments and relationships that promote positive community-based youth development (Borden, Yohalem, Blyth, & Morales, 2000).

• Children, Youth, and Families, Education and Research Network, a service of the Cooperative Extension Service http://www.cyfernet.org/youth/outofschool.html
  
• National School Age Care Alliance http://www.nsaca.org/ws/Nsaca/Public%20Pages/StandardsGlance.htm
  
• National Institute of Out of School Time http://www.wellesley.edu/WCW/CRW/SAC/index.html

All these initiatives highlight the growing interest in quality out-of-school activities and the need for high quality research. Although there is a heightened national awareness regarding the contribution of structured-out-of-school experiences to positive youth development, only a small amount of scientific research has been completed in this emerging field. Much of this research has been reviewed in the previous section and shows the gap in our understanding of how specific components and types of out-of-school activities are linked to different outcomes for a variety of children with different backgrounds and contexts.

A seminal article in this field of positive youth development (Larson, 2000) has given clear direction for the type of comprehensive high-quality research that is needed in this field. Such research is not being systematically addressed by other researchers at this time, and is the focus of this proposal. Larson (2000) suggests that future research should (1) Descriptively conceptualize the developmental phenomena occurring within structured out-of-school experiences, (2) Assess the impact of different components of structured-out-of-school experience on both positive and negative outcomes for different types of youth, (3) Use critical scientific rigor to study these impacts longitudinally in collaboration with professional youth workers. Scientific research of such breadth and depth suggests that a multi-state collaboration may be needed in order to adequately assess the impact of a wide range of structured out-of-school experiences for students from many different backgrounds.

STRENGTH OF THIS PROJECT:

The task of uncovering the key developmental processes occurring within these structured out-of-school experiences will require a substantial collaboration of scholars across many disciplines with backgrounds in both qualitative and quantitative approaches. This collaboration is already evident in the submission of a grant proposal for the USDAs National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. Furthermore, the project requires expertise in youth and family development, sociology, anthropology, cultural competence, psychology, and community development. In addition, there is a critical need to have strong ties to a diverse group of communities and youth who will be supportive of this project and willing to participate and can disseminate this information to practitioners (Keith, Perkins, Greer, Casey, & Ferrari, 1998). The scholars submitting this proposal represent such breadth of experience, expertise, and strong community engagement and are a key component to the success of this initiative.

Objectives

1. To identify and analyze the dimensions of key developmental processes that occur in structured out-of-school activities.
   
2. To identify and analyze the influence of individual youth, family, and community factors on youth involvement in structured out-of-school experiences with different characteristics.
   
3. To identify and analyze the relationships between structured out-of-school experiences and key developmental outcomes associated with positive youth development defined as personal engagement in their own development and civic engagement.
   
4. To track over time the key developmental processes that occur across single or multiple structured out-of-school experiences.
   
5. These objectives will utilize purposeful samples of programs, youth, and parents with over-sampling of youth from ethnic and rural backgrounds. Multiple qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies will be used for cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Given the challenges of conducting developmental research in naturalized settings, a strong research design will be implemented to control for attrition and other factors. Details follow:
   

Methods

Procedures for Objective 1: To identify and analyze the dimensions of key developmental processes that occur in structured out-of-school activities. Sample: Program level of analysis A purposeful sample of structured out-of-school experiences or programs that include 5th to 10th grade students will be drawn from multiple states. Sampling stratification procedures (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988) will be used to over sample under-represented youth and under-represented types of structured out-of-school experiences by targeting geographic areas with large populations of students from Mexican, Puerto Rican, of other Hispanic origin, African American, Asian, and Native American backgrounds since ethnicity has been found to moderate the relationship between of structured out-of-school experiences and positive youth development (Markstrom, 1999). Rural populations will also be over-sampled to insure adequate representation. Operational Definition of Program Variable: Structured out-of-school experiences selected for this study include those that meet the following criteria: (1) voluntary or non-punishment mandated activities (e.g. includes community service required for National Honor Society, but not community service to fulfill probation); (2) facility based and non-facility-based programs; (3) includes a group component; (4) includes structured experiences; (5) has a minimum duration or intensity to be determined by the research team; (6) has an adult or older youth leader present; (7) has the purpose of engaging youth in their own development and in civic engagement; and (8) includes skill-based, civic, social, athletic, and spiritual activities. Data Collection and Analysis: The methods used to collect this data will include ethnographic and observational methods in the naturalized settings (Cook & Campbell, 1979) where structured out-of-school experiences occur. Data will also be collected through focus groups with youth and youth workers, through paper and pencil survey self-reports by youth and youth workers, and through archival data from youth-serving organizations (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988). Content analysis (Keppel & Zedeck, 1989) and concept mapping (Trochim, 1989) methods will be used to analyze information gathered in this objective Measures: The measures to assess these key developmental process will be developed as a central component of this objective since measures have not yet been developed to empirically assess the quality and characteristics of structured out-of-school experiences. Based on confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) and item response theory (Hambleton, Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991), psychometrically sound scales will be developed in this objective to measure (1) characteristics of structured out-of-school activities, (2) key developmental processes that occur within these structured out-of-school activities, and (3) positive youth development outcomes related to youth civic engagement and their personal engagement in their own development. Procedures for Objective 2: To identify and analyze the influence of individual youth, family, and community factors on youth involvement in structured out-of-school experiences with different characteristics. Samples: Program level of analysis The same procedures will be used as stated in Objective #1. Youth level of analysis In addition to the program level of analysis, a purposeful sample (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988) of 5th to 10th grade students participating in structured out-of-school experiences will be drawn from multiple states. Similar to the program level of analysis, stratification procedures will be used to over sample under-represented youth from rural and ethnic populations. Data Collection: The methods used to collect this data will include time use mapping methods (Larson & Richards, 1994), ethnographic and observational methods in the settings where structured out-of-school experiences occur (Berg, 1989), focus groups (Cook & Campbell, 1979), interviews with key informants (Cook & Campbell, 1979), paper and pencil survey self-reports by youth and their parents (Kerlinger, 1986), archival data from individual records from youth serving organizations related to levels of youth participation in structured out-of-school activities (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988), and archival data related to community characteristics (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988). Measures: Dependent Variable: The outcome measure of youth participation in structured out-of-school experiences will be measured by variables related to youth actual time use and involvement in structured out-of-school activities. These variables will include measurement of qualities such as activity type, quality (using measures developed in objective 1), peer composition, adult to youth ratio, duration of program, location of setting, and access to programs. Independent Variables: Measures used to assess individual factors will include variables related to, youth perceptions of those activities, and youth ideal time use preferences. Additional demographic characteristics of youth will focus on variables such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, ethnic identity, and perceptions of their own skin color. Independent Variable: Family measures will include an assessment of variables such as family social capital, time use priorities, and attitudes toward out-of-school activities. Independent Variable: Key characteristics of communities that will be measured include variables such as community attitudes toward youth and youth activities, availability and diversity of structured out-of-school experiences in the community, and community capital including economic and educational resources. Analyses: Structural equation modeling (Bollen, 1989), regression (Keppel &Zedeck), and correlational (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988) analyses will be used to monitor the impact of individual, family, and community variables on youth participation. Procedures for Objective 3: To identify and analyze the relationships between structured out-of-school experiences and key developmental outcomes associated with positive youth development defined as personal engagement in their own development and civic engagement. Sample: Youth and parent level of analyses A representative sample of youth and their parents will be drawn from school districts in multiple states by selecting 5th to 10th grade youth from regular and alternative education classrooms. This will allow for comparison of naturally occurring groups based on different out-of-school participation rates (Berg, 1989). Similar to previous objectives, stratification procedures will be used to over sample under-represented youth and under-represented types of structured out-of-school experiences by targeting geographic areas large populations of youth who have Mexican, Puerto Rican, of other Hispanic origin, African American, Asian, and Native American backgrounds in addition to white youth (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988). Data Collection: Data collection methods used on objective two will also be used in this objective. In addition, survey and self-reports will be collected from parents (Singleton, Straits, Straits, & McAllister, 1988) and archival data will be collected from student school records. Measures: The measures used in this objective will be developed in research objective #1. These measures will assess characteristics of the structured out-of-school experiences and the developmental outcomes occurring in youth. Procedures for Objective 4: To track over time the key developmental processes that occur across single or multiple structured out-of-school experiences. Sample: Sampling procedures used in objective 3 will apply for objective 4 as the initial sample in objective 3 will be tracked longitudinally in objective 4 (Crouchley, 1987). Data Collection: Data collection methods used in objective 3 will be continued in objective 4. A standardized set of variables will be collected across all research samples during each year of this project. Measures: This objective will utilize measures developed in each of the previous objectives so that reliable scales can be assessed across all research samples. Analyses: Structural equation modeling (Bollen, 1989) and other analytical methods described in objective 2 will be used to longitudinally monitor relationships among all the study variables, including direct, indirect, and moderating influences of these variables. The multi-level analytical methodologies will be employed in these longitudinal analyses to account for the statistical challenges of conducting research during this dynamic stage of life in which a great diversity of individual patterns occur across contexts (Bergman, 2001; Lerner, Lerner, de Stefanis, & Apfel, 2001; von Eye & Schuster, 2001). Additionally, survival analyses techniques will be used to study the long-term participation rates of youth in structured out-of-school experiences (Luke, 1993).

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Research Monograph(s). A research monograph will be published summarizing the "lessons learned" related to key developmental processes that occur across single or multiple structured out-of-school experiences. In addition, the findings of this project will result in multiple research publications related to objectives outlined in this proposal.
• Policy Synthesis. A synthesis of research findings related to the impact of structured out-of-school experiences on positive youth development and will be documented in formats appropriate for policy makers and program stakeholders.
• Youth and Parent Guide. Based on the research findings, a checklist or guide will be developed to help youth and parents evaluate the choices of structured out-of-school experiences in their communities so that they can select experiences that best suit the needs of individual youth.
• Program Models and Recommendations. Based on the research findings, the project team will develop culturally appropriate models of structured out-of-school experiences. Using these models the project team will make recommendations about how youth serving organizations can structure out-of-school experiences to meet the needs of youth from diverse backgrounds.
• Research Tools. From the exploratory and measurement development activities, the project team will develop psychometrically sound research measures or scales that can be utilized across the field to measure the impact of structured out-of-school experiences on youth development. Such tools will be developed for use by researchers and youth work practitioners.
• 6. Conference Session. The project team will host a conference to present and discuss the research findings from the project and discuss implications for practice and future research.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Improved programming for youth. The utilization of research findings will lead to better models of structured out-of-school experiences for youth. Youth workers and youth serving organizations can use the research findings to incorporate more of the features that facilitate positive youth development into their activities and programs. In addition, youth workers and youth serving organizations can use these research findings to develop culturally and developmentally appropriate out-of-school experiences that will match the needs of the youth in their area.
• Increased opportunities to address individual youth needs. By utilizing research findings based on these models of appropriate programming, youth serving organizations can better match the needs of individual youth with specific types of programs. Through these program modifications youth may be able to participate in structured out-of-school experiences that fit their individual needs.
• Increased assistance available for parents and youth choosing out-of-school experiences. Based on the research findings, parents and youth can have tools and information that can help them select the structured out-of-school activities that best suit the needs of individual youth.
• Increased land-grant involvement. A goal of this project is to increase the involvement of land-grant institutions in the programming and research related to structured out-of-school experiences and positive youth development.
• Development of a research platform. From this project a research platform will be developed that cumulatively contributes to the field of positive youth development.

Milestones

(1):ar 1: Objective #1 ?Secure research sites ?Develop selection criteria for youth research sample ?Develop selection criteria for sampling structured out-of-school experiences ?Complete descriptive studies - collect and analyze data ?Develop and pilot initial measurement tools ?Document levels of youth involvement in various types of structured out-of-school experiences ?Identify additional funding sources ?Submit research proposal for funding (NRICGP submitted 12/00)

(2):ar 2: Objective #2, #3, #4 ?Develop reliable measurements based on work completed in year 1 ?Standardized research protocols ?Conduct Wave 1 (baseline) measurement of variables

(3):ar 3: Objective #4 ?Conduct Wave 2 measurement of variables ?Share data from Wave 1 with all sites ?Analyze Wave 1 data ?Document the development of measures for scientific community

(4):ar 4: Objective #4 ?Conduct Wave 3 measurement of variables ?Share data from Wave 2 with all sites ?Analyze Wave 2 data

(5):ar 5: Objective #4 ?Conduct Wave 4 measurements of variables ?Share data from Wave 3 with all sites ?Analyze Wave 3 data ?Document findings for all stakeholder groups in appropriate formats ?Host conference to highlight research findings

(0):0

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

As noted in the earlier sections, dissemination of the research findings will be conducted in many ways to reach a variety of stakeholders. (1) Research monographs and publications in peer-reviewed journals will be the method of disseminating results to the scientific community. (2) Resource guides will be developed for youth and their parents so that they can evaluate the quality of structured out-of-school experiences in their community and determine which ones are best suited to the needs of individual youth and their parents. These guides will be disseminated through national networks of youth-serving organizations serving youth and families. (3) Program recommendations with culturally appropriate program models will be written for youth workers and youth-serving organizations to help them design out-of-school experiences to best fit the needs and desires of youth in their communities. These guides will be disseminated through national networks of youth-serving organizations serving youth and families. (4) Policy recommendations will be disseminated to state and federal government agencies and private funding agencies to assist them in making determinations about financial support for structured out-of-school activities. (5) A conference will be hosted for researchers and practitioners to gather together to learn about the findings of this longitudinal research and discuss implications for practice and future research.

Organization/Governance

At the initial meeting of the NCT committee, a standard form of governance was adopted with the exception that the committee will have two co-chairs rather than one chair. The following positions will be held for two years by the personnel named below:
Co-Chair: Joanne Keith, Michigan State University
Co-Chair: Francisco Villarruel, Michigan State University
Chair-Elect: Daniel Perkins, Pennsylvania State University
Secretary: Melissa Quon Huber, Michigan State University
Webmaster: Ron Werner-Wilson, Iowa State University

Literature Cited

Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.

Bergman, L. R. (2001). A person approach in research on adolescence: Some methodological challenges. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 9-27.

Bollen, K, A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley: New York.

Borden, L., Yohalem, Y., Blyth, D., & Morales, J. (2000, Fall). Advancing the Understanding of Youth Development and Its Effective Application: Reflections on the North Central Region's Recent Efforts. The Center, 50-57. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis:MN.

Camino, L. A. (2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4, Suppl. 1, 11-20.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the non-school hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton, Mifflin: Boston.

Crouchley, R. (1987). Longitudinal data analysis. Gower: Brookfield, Vermont.

Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10-43.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage^environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist,48, 90-101.

Fisher, C. B., Jackson, J. J., & Villarruel, F. A. (1997). The study of ethnic minority children and youth in the United States. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.) Theoretical models of Human Development (pp. 1145-1207) Vol. 1 of the, Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 5th Edition), Editor-in-Chief: William Damon. New York: Wiley Press.

Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory, Volume 2. Sage: London.

Hart, R. A., (1992). Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Innocenti Essays No. 4. Available from United Nations Children's Fund, Florence (Italy). International Child Development Centre. UNICEF, International Child Development Centre, Piazza S.S. Annunziata 12, 50122 Florence, Italy.

Huber, M, & Kossek, E. E. (1999). Community distress predicting welfare exits: The under examined factor for families in the United States. Community, Work, and Family, 2(2).

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park : Sage Publications.

Keith, J. and Perkins, D.F. (1998), An Ecological Approach for Teaching Positive Youth Development. Chapter in Schiamberg, L. and McKinney, J. Editors Teaching About Adolescence. New York: Garland Press.

Keith, J.G., Perkins, D.F., Greer, J.C., Casey, K.M., & Ferrari, T.M. (1998). The Young Spartan Program: A bridge between the ivory tower and the community. In R.M. Lerner & L.A.K. Simon (Eds.): University-community collaboration for the 21st century: Outreach scholarship for youth and families. New York: Garland.

Keppel, G., & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data analysis for research designs: Analysis of variance and multiple regression/correlation approaches. W. H. Freeman and Company: New York.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd. Ed.). Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston: Chicago.

Larson, R. W. (2000) Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170-183

Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. Basicbooks, Inc: New York

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., De Stefanis, I., & Apfel, A. (2001). Understanding developmental systems in adolescence: Implications for methodological strategies, data analytic approaches, and training. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 9-27.

Lerner, R. M., Villarruel, F. A., & Castellino, D. (1999). Adolescent development, adolescent risk, and the promotion of positive youth development: A developmental contextual perspective. In W. K. Silverman & T. H. Ollendick (Eds.), Developmental issues in the clinical treatment of children (pp.125-136). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Luke, D. (1993). Charting the process of change: A primer on survival analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 2023-246.

Markstrom, C. A. (1999). Religious involvement and adolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 205-221.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd. Ed.). McGraw-Hill: New York.

Perkins, D. F. & Borden, L. M. (Chapter to appear in Lerner, R. M. & Lerner, J.V. Eds.), Today's Teenager: Adolescence in America. Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO.

Quinn, J. (1999) Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for early teens. The Future of Children, 9, 96-116

Roffman, Suarez-Orozco, & Rhodes, in press. In D. Perkins, L. Borden, J. Keith, & F. Villarruel, Eds., Community Youth Development: Beacons, Challenges, and Opportunities.

Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Search Institute: Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Scales, P.C., Benson, P.L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D.A. (2000) Contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 27-46.

Singleton, R. Jr., Straits, B. C., Straits, M. M., & McAllister, R. J. (1988). Approaches to Social Research. Oxford University Press: New York.

Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.

United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. (2000). The Next Agenda - National 4-H Strategic Plan 2000. Available from Allan Smith, National 4-H Program Leader Families, 4-H and Nutrition, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Stop 2225 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-2225.

Valentine, N. (1998). Extension Caresfor America's Children and Youth. Concept paper available from the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service at http://www.reeusda.gov/childcare/concept_paper.htm.

Villarruel, F. A., & Lerner, R. M. (1994a). Development and context and the contexts of learning. In F. A. Villarruel & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Promoting community-based programs for socialization and learning (pp. 3-10). (New Directions for Child Development). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Villarruel, F. A., & Lerner, R. M. (1994b). New directors for child development, No. 63. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Von Eye, A. & Schuster, C. (2001). Preface to the JAR special issue: Methodology for research on adolescence-the need for innovation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 3-8.

Weiss, H. B. (2000). Emerging strategies in evaluating child & family services. The Evaluation Exchange, 6(1), 1-2. Newsletter available from the Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 38 Concord Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138.

Whalen, S. P., Wynn, J. R,, (1995). Enhancing primary services for youth through an infrastructure of social services. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 88-110.

Zeldin, S. (1995) Community - university collaborations for youth development: From theory to practice. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 449-469

Zeldin, S. (2000). Integrating research and practice to understand and strengthen communities for adolescent development: An introduction to the special issue and current issues. Applied Developmental Science, 4, Suppl. 1, 2-10.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AZ, CA, IL, IN, KY, MA, MI, MN, PA, WV

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions