Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress
ISBN 978–0–19–085872–8
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 3 2
Printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada
Preface
The purpose of this toolkit is to provide a means for school-based practitioners to engage youth in solving problems in their schools or communities by being active agents in the change process.
We bring years of combined experience as school- and community-based practitioners, as school administrators, and more recently as scholars and researchers in academia. We have experience in a variety of settings, such as schools, community-based agencies, hospitals/mental health clinics, and private practice. Together, we have worked with children and families and school systems in direct practice and as consultants. Our skill sets were honed through specialized training in youth development, leadership training, program planning and evaluation, and marriage and family therapy. In addition, we have worked to advance the development of social and emotional learning standards. More important, our introduction of critical service learning (CSL) to master’s level students and social work practitioners has sparked the impetus for this toolkit.
The toolkit was written to provide unique strategies for working effectively with youth in a participatory manner. Furthermore, it provides tools for empowering youth— elevating their voices and focusing on community activism, which is particularly important for at-promise youth (Rios, 2012; Swadener, 2010). At-promise youth is an asset-based term that eschews deficit-framed language about youth who are in need of intervention. Common terminology typically refers to youth who need intervention as “at-risk” youth. We see this term as a negative label that contextualizes youth only as recipients of services and not as individuals who can overcome adversity and contribute to their schools and communities. In alignment with the nature of CSL, we use the term at-promise youth.
Serving youth from a problem-deficit model places the onus of change on the individual and does little to examine environmental factors or even youth’s capabilities to influence change. CSL takes the opposite approach. The methodology starts with youth voice, taps into youth’s strengths, and provides a forum for youth to act as change agents in their schools and communities. Through this process, youth are better able to understand their own identities and capacity to make changes in their communities. The community webmapping tool is central to the articulation of student voice and provides a framework to help them address issues around social justice, power, and privilege. Reflection, a significant component of the process, strengthens youth identities by unearthing untapped social and emotional competencies such as skills in leadership, mediation, decisionmaking, and the ability to work in collaborative teams. The change process is compelling, often altering how youth are viewed by adults in their schools and communities as a result of their engagement in this approach.
This toolkit introduces CSL and the processes involved in creating and implementing a CSL program. In 2008, we incorporated CSL in the graduate master’s of social work curriculum. Social work students interning in a variety of schools developed CSL programs as part of their final project. The purpose was to provide strategies to work with youth from a strengths-based perspective. The CSL Toolkit reflects the work that has been cultivated, strengthened, and tested in multiple school settings for more than 8 years. Whether you are just being introduced to the approach or are already using it in your practice, this toolkit is a practical guide that has resources for each phase of the process. Chapter 1 discusses the difference between service learning and CSL. Chapters 2 through 7 provide a theoretical framework for CSL and the elements in supporting youth voice, review the community web-mapping process, consider strategies for gaining administrative buy-in, present the logic model, and provide evaluation strategies. Chapter 8 provides a guide for each phase of the project planning and implementation process. A step-by-step, userfriendly practitioner guide for each group session is illustrated in Chapter 9. Chapter 10 addresses practitioner burnout, and Chapter 11 focuses on research and future implications. Throughout the toolkit, case examples are presented.
REFERENCES
Rios, V. (2012). From “at-risk” to “at-promise”: Supporting teens to overcome adversity. Retrieved from https:// ted.com/talks/victor_rios_help_for_kids_the_education_system_ignores Swadener, B. B. (2010). “At Risk” or “At Promise”? From deficit constructions of the “other childhood” to possibilities for authentic alliances with children and families. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 3, 7–29.
Acknowledgments
We extend our deepest appreciation to Aubrey Thornton and Lena Izzo—Jane Addams College of Social Work alumni—for sharing their case examples for this toolkit. Our special appreciation extends to practitioners in the field, Erik Engel, Julie Fisher, Kim Morris, Chastity Owens, Margot Walsh, and Jennifer White, who took time out of their busy schedules to provide invaluable feedback regarding the writing of this document.
Introduction
Critical service learning (CSL) is an innovative approach to promoting social and emotional learning (SEL) for students. It encompasses a strengths-based philosophy that promotes youth empowerment to assist them in developing the assets needed to be productive citizens. Youth voice is an essential element of CSL and represents a necessary strategy for helping youth to connect with their schools and community.
The educational landscape affects student services and the context in which schoolbased practitioners work. With broad changes in education, the shift in educational policy and rising mental health needs have significantly affected supportive services and which services are available to students. At the same time, educational systems continue to struggle with the tension between increasing college attendance rates and achievement gaps across race and income (Hirschman & Lee, 2005). This changing educational landscape emphasizes the use of evidence-based interventions, with a strong focus on accountability and reducing the achievement gap (Corbin, 2005). It is critical for schoolbased practitioners to understand how to intervene using evidence-based practice within the changing educational context.
Evidence-based intervention and accountability can be addressed in many ways. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) supports the use of evidence-based intervention and specific intervention models (Berzin & O’Connor, 2010). Response to intervention (RTI), now called the multitier system of support (MTSS), is an early intervention system that allows for prevention activities for all students. MTSS includes the rigorous implementation of high-quality, culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, assessment, and evidence-based intervention to address the needs of youth. Policy developments
such as these have considerably changed the framework in which today’s school social workers and other school-based practitioners provide services to youth.
From an intervention perspective, change in the prevalence of mental health disorders among school-age children clearly affects the work of the school social worker. The presence of mental health disorders and concerns about school violence and bullying have risen; bullying affects large numbers of children, with over 50% of students indicating that they have been bullied (Berzin & O’Connor, 2010). As today’s youth face a more complex set of risk factors at the individual, school, family, and community levels (Kelly, Raines, Stone, & Frey, 2010), new intervention models are being used in school systems to address students’ needs.
School systems are complex organizations with an overarching purpose of educating children and youth in preparation for adult life. Schools bring together practitioners from diverse cultures, disciplinary perspectives, and strengths that collectively form a learning community encompassing multiple systems, processes, and constituents (Harris, 2015).
Youth intervention work takes place within this dynamic educational landscape; therefore, it is important that school social workers and school-based practitioners understand the reality of working in schools. Achieving acceptance and professional accommodations in such an environment requires recognizing the organizational culture and mission of the school as a learning institution, identifying both the formal and informal structures within the organization, and assuming a role that supports the school’s mission, goals, and expectations.
Understanding the school culture and hierarchy, as well as how the social worker fits into this order, will be vital to the school social worker’s role in performing effectively (Harris, 2015). In that regard, social work cannot practice in a vacuum. A strong need exists to align school social work practice with educational goals. The paradigm shift in education focuses on accountability and emphasizes an evidence-based practice, which calls for a multilevel and cross-disciplinary approach to school social work practice. This cross-disciplinary approach aligns with the educational curriculum and supports the development of students’ social and emotional competencies, which are vital for academic success.
Critical service learning represents a strengths-based approach that lends itself to the changing educational landscape and aligns itself with the curriculum. It can be used at all MTSS levels—Tier 1 (school-wide), Tier 2 (targeted students), or Tier 3 (students in need of intensive supports)—to address a wide array of learning needs, whether in gifted, regular, or special education. This approach can also be used as a stand-alone counseling model that supports the social and emotional development of targeted students or serves as a component of a therapeutic group or as a classroom-based “push-in service” implemented in collaboration with the classroom teacher. The practitioners decide how
to modify the targeted goals for any group they work with based on students’ developmental needs and abilities.
Regardless of youth’s educational level, CSL engages youth in meaningful service activities in their school and community to support the development of civic responsibility, caring and concern for others, and self-worth. CSL is integrated into the academic curriculum so that students are empowered to brainstorm, plan, and implement activities that will have a direct impact on the school, the community, and their personal development (McKay & Johnson, 2010). At the same time, CSL provides a vehicle for youth to examine issues around social justice, power, and privilege and gives them guidance on taking action. SEL provides the overarching structural framework for CSL, embedded within an educational system, while components from positive youth development and youth activism represent important tenets for working with and engaging youth. These tenets will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
REFERENCES
Berzin, S. C., & O’Connor, S. (2010). Educating today’s school workers: Are school social work courses responding to the changing context? Children & Schools, 32(4), 237–249.
Corbin, J. (2005). Increasing opportunities for school social work practice resulting from comprehensive school reform. Children & Schools, 27(4), 239–246.
Harris, K. I. (2015). Social studies investigations for young citizens: Passports to inquiry, community and partnerships. Social Studies Research & Practice, 10(3), 88–97.
Hirschman, C., & Lee, J. C. (2005). Race and ethnic inequality in educational attainment in the United States. In M. Rutter & M. Tienda (Eds.), Ethnicity and causal mechanisms (pp. 107–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), H. R. 1350, 108th Congress (2004).
Kelly, M. S., Raines, J. C., Stone, S., & Frey, A. (2010). School social work: An evidence-informed framework for practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McKay, C., & Johnson, A. (2010). Service learning: An example of multilevel school social work practice. School Social Work Journal, 35(1), 21–36.
CRITICAL SERVICE LEARNING TOOLKIT
Transforming Service Learning Into Critical Service Learning
Service learning is a pedagogical approach that engages youth in achieving learning goals that link communities and schools through intentional, structured activities (McReynolds, 2015). Through service learning, the practitioner engages students in projects that serve the community while building social, civic, and academic skills to help them learn about others. Critical service learning, on the other hand, builds on service learning and expands to include social justice principles. Critical service learning as an approach compels youth to interrogate systems and structures of inequality and distribution of power and to seek to develop authentic relationships among all participants (Mitchell, 2008). It also encourages participants to examine issues of power, privilege, and oppression within the service activity by questioning hidden biases and assumptions concerning race, class, and gender and to challenge the status quo by working toward changing inequities within social and economic systems (Cipolle, 2010).
Engaging in critical service learning, as a therapeutic strategy, allows youth to contemplate community problem-solving through critical thinking that raises questions about the roots of social inequality. For example, youth who embark on service learning may develop a wellness project that considers the effect of health on mood and behavior. Students may incorporate simple physical exercises and healthy eating tips and create a nutritional food menu for students to share with their peers and families.
Students who participate in this same example from a critical service learning framework not only will do all of these activities but also will critically analyze factors
that contribute to healthy living. For example, students may explore the barriers to accessing fresh fruits and vegetables in communities that are food deserts (communities with a scarcity of mainstream markets that have fresh fruits and vegetables). Students may delve further to consider the economic and political decisions that reduce access to healthy foods in their neighborhoods. Students may perform action research through facilitating a shopping field trip to neighborhood, and mainstream food outlets to inspect and compare the produce for quality and price value. As a result, students may bring their findings to their local political office to request support to improve local food outlet resources. This activity may be integrated in the academic curriculum as well as provide opportunities to expand students’ social and emotional learning development.
This can be juxtaposed with typical service learning that engages in a “do for, serve you, and give to” mentality (consciously or unconsciously; Pompa, 2002), perpetuating a stratified divide. Furthermore, traditional service learning projects predetermine who should be “served” or “fixed” rather than considering the capabilities of the youth to participate in the resolution needed within their own communities. This preconceived view of community engagement reaffirms who holds power and how it is maintained (Cooks, Scharrer, & Paredes, 2004). The critical service learning approach increases youth knowledge regarding social justice and helps the youth to develop a proactive position, which is empowering and enhances the sense of self.
Critical service learning is meaningful for all students regardless of their background, and it enhances their identity development. Understanding one’s relationship to power and privilege is an important step for students in questioning and redistributing power within inequitable systems (Donahue & Mitchell, 2010). Donahue and Mitchell wrote about privileged identities and reminded practitioners to address the wide array of students’ experiences related to privilege and marginalization. For instance, some students have little personal experiences with institutional racism and might see racism only in flagrant acts of prejudice rather than in structures that bestow racial privilege. In contrast, students whose racial identities are marginalized are more likely to have experienced institutional racism and may see its effects more readily.
Students with privileged identities may believe they have a right or even a responsibility to advise individuals or “help” individuals or communities. Consciously or unconsciously, they assume the power to tell others what to do and believe they know what is best for youth. Instead, when youth experience the transformative nature of critical service learning, they begin to reframe how they see themselves and their identities, particularly identities of privilege (Donahue & Mitchell, 2010). Students also learn through their acts of service to challenge their own preconceived notions of how power is distributed
to them. It is important that all students have the opportunity to reflect on and analyze systemic injustice whatever their own lived experience.
The parallel process of self-examination is also important for practitioners who work with youth. Those who practice from an unexamined lens of their own privilege may potentially silence youth. A lack of examination may devalue youth’s expertise over the practitioner’s experience and lessen the potential of framing the intervention from a strengths-based perspective. This toolkit provides an empowering approach, encourages the examination of all lenses (or experiences), and bridges the disciplines of education and social work practice. In addition, this chapter, examines service learning versus critical service learning not only as an educational strategy but as a strategy that support social justice (Table 1.1). The nature of critical service learning described in this toolkit entails a multilayer approach by which the practitioners, as well as other school/community participants, are engaged in liberatory forms of pedagogy. Consequently, practitioners must be knowledgeable of the social, political, and economic forces that shape their lives and the lives of the youth (Rhoads, 1998). As discussed in Chapter 3, reflection plays a critical role in self-examination of the youth as well as the practitioner.
Critical service learning can present a platform on which school social workers and other school-based practitioners can use elements from structural social work theory. This theory provides a vehicle by which service learning can be transformed to critical service learning. Structural social work emphasizes that the practitioner understand the socioeconomic or structural context of individual problems and how exploitive power arrangements and societal forces create social conditions that generate individual problems (Lundy, 2004), whereas traditional social work places the locus of social problems on individuals and families (Reza & Ahmmed, 2009).
The goal of structural social work is to provide immediate relief or tension reduction as well as long-term institutional and structural change (Reza & Ahmmed, 2009). Structural social workers are expected to help organize oppressed groups for reclaiming their identity, creating and strengthening community solidarity, and developing group- specific voice and perspective (Mullaly, 2007). Through critical service learning, this process occurs when practitioners engage at-promise youth in implementing student-led critical service learning projects in their schools or larger communities and practitioners act as advocates and facilitators (not directors) of the project. Through group experiences, experiential activities and discussions questioning the distribution of power can be facilitated (Mitchell, 2008). As students explore their communities and locate their voices, they engage in a potentially transformative process by which they gain confidence, exercise a sense of agency, and enact strategies to influence their own communities.
TABLE 1.1 Service Learning versus Critical Service Learning
Service Learning Aim
• Altruism/create connections to the community/civic duty.
Student Orientation
• Active learners, experiential in nature to benefit the student and is informed by classroom learning to address community needs.
Educator Focus
• Social responsibility to be civically minded.
Action/Reflection
• Achieve learning goals, which link schools and communities together. Action guided by a focus on the individual, yet without further examination of personal or institutional contributions to social problems (Marullo, 1999; Rice & Pollack, 2000).
• Does not have a social justice orientation: Can reify have and have-not mentality. Can disempower recipient, which maintains power of the giver.
Critical Service Learning Aim
• Create opportunities for social change/ community connections for equity building— goal is to facilitate redistribution of power.
Student Orientation
• Active learners, student contributors, and (more importantly) change agents. Students are informed by classroom learning to facilitate social change and benefit community by addressing social injustice.
Educator Focus
• Social responsibility and critique of status quo and promotion of community change. Embrace the political nature of service and seeks justice.
Action/Reflection
• Social action guided by critical thought and reflection of personal and institutional contributions to social problems (Marullo, 1999; Rice & Pollack, 2000).
• Address community needs: First by examining issues of power, privilege, and oppression (Cipolle, 2010)—students and then others.
• Has a social justice orientation: Involve students in the examination of root causes of social problems and in actions to address these root causes; foreground issues of identity and difference; raise consciousness about issues of power, oppression and privilege.
REFERENCES
Cipolle, S. B. (2010). Service learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cooks, L., Scharrer, E., & Paredes, M. C. (2004). Toward a social approach to learning in community service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 44–56.
Donahue, D. M., & Mitchell, T. D. (2010). Critical service learning as a tool for identity exploration. Diversity and Democracy, 13(2), 16–17.
Lundy, C. (2004). Social work and social justice: A structural approach to practice. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.
Marullo, S. (1999). Sociology’s Essential Role: Promoting Critical Service Learning. Cultivating the sociological imagination: Concepts and models for service-learning in sociology (pp. 11–27). Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
McReynolds, M. (2015). The practice of engagement: Developing as a practitioner scholar. In O. DelanoOriaran, M. Parks, & S. Fondrie (Eds.), Service-learning and civic engagement: A sourcebook (pp. 3–9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional versus critical service learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65.
Moreau, M. J. (1989). Empowerment through a structural approach to social work: A report from practice Ottawa, CA: Carleton University.
Mullaly, R. P. (2007). The new structural social work (3rd ed.). Don Mills, ON, Canada: Oxford University Press. Pompa, L. (2002). Service-learning as crucible: Reflections on immersion, context, power, and transformation. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 67–76.
Reza, M. H., & Ahmmed, F. (2009). Structural social work and the compatibility of NGO approaches: A case analysis of Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC). International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(2), 73–182.
Rhoads, R. A. (1998). Critical multiculturalism and service learning. In R. A. Rhoads & J. P. F. Howard (Eds.), Academic service learning: A pedagogy of action and reflection (pp. 39–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rice, K., & Plooack, S. (2000). Developing a critical pedagogy of servie learning: Preparing self-reflective, culturally aware, and responsive community participants. Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universties, pp. 115–134.
The Nuts and Bolts of Critical Service Learning
Theoretical Foundations
Critical service learning (CSL), social and emotional learning (SEL), and positive youth development (PYD) represent key elements for promoting healthy attitudes and behaviors among youth. This chapter explains each component and provides a theoretical overview.
CRITICAL SERVICE LEARNING
As mentioned in Chapter 1, CSL represents a therapeutic strategy that encompasses a philosophy of youth empowerment. CSL emphasizes youth becoming empowered to view themselves in relation to others, as partners, to bring about change in their environment. Mitchell (2008) defined CSL as an approach that challenges youth to become selfaware of how their own situations influence their relationships within their community. When these relationships are based on the concerns of the community, they can facilitate CSL through the examination of issues of power, privilege, and oppression—and disparaging assumptions of class, gender, and race—and then take action to address unjust and inequitable social and economic systems (Cipolle, 2010). Youth engage in critical thinking about the problems they face within their own communities and are encouraged to take action.
Critical service learning theoretical framework.
The critical approach to service learning promotes social justice and challenges the status quo. The approach to CSL involves three key elements: “working to redistribute power amongst all participants in the service learning relationship, developing authentic relationships in the classroom and in the community and working from a social change perspective” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 50). The goal of CSL is to examine power relations, challenge oppressive institutions, and cultivate in youth the power to take action.
In our model, the CSL approach presents “student voice” as a necessary component to create a sense of empowerment and authentic engagement. The community webmapping tool discussed in Chapter 3 serves as the vehicle for students to address social justice issues as they compare and contrast their vision of perfect and imperfect communities (Figure 2.1).
SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING
Social and emotional learning is a framework that provides opportunities for young people to acquire the skills necessary for maintaining personal well-being and positive relationships across their life span (Elbertson, Brackett, & Weissberg, 2009). The five competency clusters for students are the following:
1. Self-awareness: the ability to accurately recognize one’s emotions and thoughts and how they influence behavior. This includes accurately assessing one’s strengths and limitations, leading to a sense of confidence and optimism.
2. Self-management: the ability to regulate one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors effectively in different situations. This includes managing stress,
FIGURE 2.1
controlling impulses, motivating oneself, and working toward achieving personal and academic goals.
3. Social awareness: the ability to take the perspective of and empathize with others from diverse backgrounds and cultures, understand social and ethical norms, and recognize family, school, and community resources and supports.
4. Relationship skills: the ability to establish and maintain healthy and rewarding relationships with diverse individuals and groups. This includes communicating clearly, listening actively, cooperating, resisting inappropriate social pressure, negotiating conflict constructively, and seeking and offering help when needed.
5. Responsible decision-making: the ability to make constructive and respectful choices about personal behavior and social interactions based on consideration of ethical standards, safety concerns, social norms, the realistic evaluation of consequences of various actions, and the well-being of self and others (Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2005).
In addition to the focus on interpersonal and intrapersonal skill development, researchers have found that competencies associated with SEL have been identified as factors that significantly affect academic performance and lifelong effectiveness (Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). Furthermore, SEL fosters a learning atmosphere in which students report emotional connection to peers and teachers, producing better academic motivation. SEL also promotes the development of attitudes and behaviors congruent with healthy cognitive processes. According to Sylwester (1995), the following six areas benefit youth and the school environment: (a) accepting and controlling emotions, (b) using metacognitive activities, (c) using activities that promote social interaction, (d) using activities that provide an emotional context, (e) avoiding intense emotional stress in school, and (f) recognizing the relationship between emotions and health. The development of healthy cognitive processes is key to a youth’s positive development and promotes healthy skills into adulthood.
A growing body of research shows that the mastery of SEL competencies improves interpersonal and intrapersonal skill development and also significantly affects academic performance (Zins et al., 2004). Learning to manage emotions and learning to care about others are important skills in helping to decrease unproductive behavior and poor academic performance in the school environment (Hawkins, Farrington, & Catalano, 1998). Klem and Connell (2004) stated that by high school, youth have become disengaged from school, and 30% of high school students have multiple high-risk behaviors (such as substance use, sex, violence, and depression) that interfere with school performance. Compounded by educational disengagement, these risks have the potential to jeopardize a student’s later success in life (Dryfoos, 1997; Durlak, Weissberg,
Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Eaton et al., 2008). SEL promotes engagement and focuses on the connection of one’s social life with one’s emotional life to encourage positive relationships, positive decision-making, and ethical and responsible behavior in society.
From a CSL approach, self-awareness, social awareness, and decision-making are intricately tied to how youth discover more about themselves and their communities. Considering Cipolle’s premise (2010), the development of SEL competencies may aid youth in their ability to interrogate systems of oppression. As youth engage in this process, they are able to develop a sense of agency as they exercise their voices, examine historical causes of societal issues, and take action toward change.
POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Positive youth development, originating from developmental systems theory, is another approach that further promotes a strengths-based perspective (Lerner, Alberts, & Bobek, 2007). Lerner and colleagues asserted that a perspective emerges when the malleability of human development aligns with developmental assets.
Lerner et al. (2007) further stated that from this perspective, youth are not viewed as broken and in need of psychosocial repair but rather as untapped resources. Employing the techniques of PYD seeks to encourage the development of competence in youth, generates a sense of belonging, and empowers youth to act on their (own) behalf. In essence, PYD is a participatory approach that includes youth in all aspects of the program, intervention, or project.
The PYD model engages youth and builds on their strengths and assets (Farruggia & Bullen, 2010). The Lerner model (Lerner & Benson, 2003) was introduced with five competencies and later developed a sixth. The Lerner model suggests that youth need six conditions to thrive: (a) cognitive and behavioral competence, (b) confidence, (c) positive social connections, (d) character, (e) caring, and (f) contributions to society.
Contributing to society is a major outcome of PYD. According to Lerner et al. (2007), PYD is associated with civic participation, civic engagement, and civic contribution. The goals of youth engagement in PYD involve facilitating a more adaptive development and increasing youth’s awareness beyond self to extend outward toward valuing and contributing to family and community in meaningful ways.
STRENGTHS- BASED PERSPECTIVE
The strengths-based approach, developed by Saleeby (1996), is based on the underlying assumption that individuals and communities have abilities and inner strengths. Saleeby
