Youth Participation
and Community Change:
An Introduction
Barry N. Checkoway, PhD
Lorraine M. Gutiérrez, PhD
Youth participation is a process of involving young people in the institutions
and decisions that affect their lives. It includes initiatives that
emphasize educational reform, juvenile justice, environmental quality,
and other issues; that involve populations distinguished by class, race,
gender, and other characteristics; and that operate in rural areas, small
towns, suburbs, and neighborhoods of large cities in developing areas
and industrial nations worldwide.
As expressions of participation, young people are organizing groups
for social and political action, planning programs of their own choosing,
and advocating their interests in the community. They are raising consciousness,
educating others on matters that concern them, and providing
services of their own choosing. No single strategy characterizes all
approaches to participation.
Activities like these can be conceptualized in various ways. For example,
Roger Hart (1997) identifies activities and places them on the
rungs of a vertical “ladder of participation” in accordance with the
power they exercise; Danny HoSang (2003) analyzes youth organizing,
youth development, and other models on a horizontal continuum; and
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Youth Participation and Community Change: An Introduction.”
Checkoway, Barry N., and Lorraine M. Gutiérrez. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Community
Practice (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 14, No. 1/2, 2006, pp. 1-9; and: Youth Participation and Community
Change (ed: Barry N. Checkoway, and Lorraine M. Gutiérrez) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2006, pp. 1-9. Single
or multiple copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service
[1-800-HAWORTH, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: docdelivery@haworthpress.com].
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/COM
 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J125v14n01_01 1
David Driskell (2002) describes several “steps in the process” from
gathering information to program evaluation.
These activities have potential to produce outcomes at multiple levels.
Studies of several population groups show that participation can
strengthen social development, build organizational capacity, and create
changes in the environment. There has been relatively little systematic
study of youth participation outcomes at multiple levels, but the
research with other populations suggests that studies with youth will
find positive effects on such measures as personal confidence, social
connectedness, civic competencies, and leadership development. At
present, however, the potential benefits of participation on youth have
not been identified by systematic research.
Youth participation is about the real influence of young people in institutions
and decisions, not about their passive presence as human subjects
or service recipients. Although participation studies often assess
activities in terms of their scope–such as their number, frequency, and
duration–quality is their most significant measure. Just because a number
of young people attend a number of meetings and speak a number of
times, is no measure of their effect. Quality participation shows some
effect on outcomes, including its effect on community change.
Youth participation includes efforts by young people to plan programs
of their own choosing; by adults to involve young people in their
agencies; and by youth and adults to work together in intergenerational
partnerships. However, the issue is not whether the effort is youth-led,
adult-led, or intergenerational, but rather whether young people have
actual effect.
Youth participation is consistent with the view of “youth as resources,”
and contrasts with the image of “youth as problems” that permeates
the popular media, social science, and professional practice
when referring to young people.
For example, the media often portray young people, especially young
people of color, as perpetrators of crime, drug takers, school dropouts,
or other problems of society. With these images in mind, many adults
think of young people as problems, and young people accept adult images
of their deficiencies rather than viewing themselves as agents of
change.
Social scientists reinforce this view with studies of poverty, racism,
and other forces that cause poor housing, broken families, and worsening
social conditions, and result in youth violence, drug abuse, and
other social pathologies that require intervention.
2 YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CHANGE
Social workers and other professionals who adopt this view of young
people seek to save, protect, and defend them from conditions that affect
them. When the curricula at professional schools construct youth as
victims of society, professionals are prepared roles in helping them and
their families do something about their terrible personal and social conditions.
When people focus on others’ needs and deficiencies, it de-emphasizes
their assets and strengths, weakens their ability to help themselves,
and empowers the professionals who serve them.
However, another view that portrays young people as competent citizens
with a right to participate and a responsibility to serve their communities
provides a significant alternative. Proponents of this view
want to build on the strengths of youth by enabling them to make a difference
in ways that provide them with tangible benefits and develop
healthier communities. Young people who view themselves as change
agents, and adults who are their allies, are instrumental to this approach.
Social workers are strategically situated to promote youth participation,
but many of them have been conditioned to “care” about young
people rather than to “empower” them. Those social workers who emphasize
the rights of young people to participate in society and their responsibilities
to serve the community are not typical of the field.
There are explanations for why this might be the case. For example,
Janet Finn (2001) argues that social workers are agents of an “adolescent
pathology industry” which provides services to “troubled and troubling”
young and perpetuates their roles as passive recipients rather
than active participants. Whatever the explanation, social workers still
have substantial contact with young people which offers opportunities
for them to promote active participation rather than provide reactive
services.
Youth participation can be expected to increase in the future. Several
private foundations have increased their funding for community organizations
and civic agencies; national associations have expanded their
support for local initiatives; and intermediary organizations have broadened
their training and technical assistance. Recent conferences and
publications have increased awareness among popular and professional
audiences, and there is talk of a “youth participation movement” in the
making.
More knowledge of youth participation as a subject of study will contribute
to its quality as a field of practice. We surmise that participation
has several strategies, that their activities have effects at multiple levels,
and that their outcomes are influenced by forces that facilitate or limit
Introduction 3
them. However, we know that there is too little systematic research, and
that more knowledge of participation will strengthen their practice.
This volume provides new perspectives on youth participation in organizations
and communities. It considers the changing context of
youth participation, models and methods of participatory practice, roles
of youth and adults, and the future of youth and community in a diverse
democracy. It includes approaches which promote participatory community-based
research and evaluation, and involve youth groups in economically
dis-invested and racially segregated areas.
The articles in this collection are diverse, including conceptual and
theoretical discussions, empirically-based case studies and best practices,
and interdisciplinary work that draws upon psychology, sociology,
social work, public health, education, and related academic
disciplines and professional fields. The authors include youth and adult
practitioners, researchers, and educators whose experience and expertise
are not always represented in publications like this.
The first articles provide conceptual frameworks for understanding
young people and their participation. In contrast to “youth as problems,”
Silvia Blitzer Golombeck defines “youth as citizens,” a concept
consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Rather than emphasizing the age of young people as a defining
characteristic of citizenship, she emphasizes their involvement in civic
activities. She offers examples from a Norwegian city whose strategic
plan identifies young people as “fellow citizens” and from an American
city whose youth participate in the urban planning process, as a way to
substantiate her definition.
Louise B. Jennings, Deborah M. Parra-Medina, DeAnne K. Hilfinger
Messias, and Kerry McLoughlin formulate a critical social theory of youth
empowerment as a way to understand youth participation. They draw upon a
number of existing empowerment models–including adolescent empowerment,
youth development, transactional partnering, and the empowerment
education model formulated by Paulo Friere–as a basis for framing their own
notion of participation whose dimensions include assessing its effects at the
individual and community levels.
What are some ways to prepare young people for active participation
in a diverse democracy? Esminia M. Luluquisen, and Alma M. O. Trinidad,
and Dipankar Ghosh describe Hawaii’s Sariling Gawa youth council
as an approach to youth leadership which is consistent with
empowerment principles and which promotes positive ethnic social
identity, and builds organizational and community capacity, of Filipino
youth. Through this program, young people set priorities, formulate
4 YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CHANGE
plans, and organize action groups. They attend cultural events, conduct
community conferences, and complete service projects. In the face of
discrimination, they position themselves for social change.
Melanie D. Otis describes the Lexington Youth Leadership Academy as
an effort to prepare participants for leadership roles. Young people develop
knowledge for problem solving, program planning, peer mentoring, and
community collaboration through a program which includes dialogues on
diversity and a community change agent project. Program evaluators assess
its effects on their self-concept, social action orientation, and other
measures.
Cindy Carlson describes an exemplary effort in Hampton, Virginia to
engage young people in public policy at the municipal level. Starting
with a city council decision to create a coalition and make the city a
better place for youth, they have developed a multi-tiered system of participation
opportunities, including a youth commission which involves
young people in public policy and leadership development. As part of
the process, they address attitudes and create cultural changes among
adults that fail to recognize young people as resources. She shows that
the municipality has real potential for youth participation, and identifies
“adults as allies” in addition to youth leaders as key participants.
Participatory research and evaluation are ways to involve young people
in community change. In contrast to the usual pattern in which
knowledge development is viewed as a process in which technical experts
conduct research and ordinary people play passive roles, participatory
research is an approach in which people collaborate in defining
problems, gathering information, analyzing findings, and using the
knowledge. Although this approach is increasing among adult groups
distinguished by class, race, gender, and other characteristics, young
people are not normally at the table.
Our authors have a different take. For example, Kysa Nygreen, Soo Ah
Kwon, and Patricia Sánchez assume that young people can and should
participate in the research process, and report on efforts to involve three
different groups of urban youth who are normally marginalized, namely a
multi-ethnic school-based group of students transforming curriculum in
an alternative high school, a Latina group conducting research on transnational
experiences, and pan-ethnic Asian and Pacific Island groups focused
on youth organizing and social justice. They conclude that these
youth are a vital resource for community transformation.
Ahna Ballonoff Suleiman, Samira Soleimanpour, and Jonathan London
examine efforts by young people to participate in research projects
in seven school-based health centers. The notion that the schools are a
Introduction 5
vehicle for using research as a form of education for democracy is not
new, but the promise of this approach is generally not realized. The authors
describe specific strategies and reflect on the lessons learned from
these initiatives.
Caroline C. Wang describes photovoice as a particular participatory
action research tool for involving young people in communities. She
describes an approach in which youth employ cameras to record their
community’s strengths and concerns, promote critical dialogue about
community issues through group discussion of photographs, and communicate
their concerns to policy makers. She draws upon data from ten
projects in which youth used photovoice to advocate community health
and well-being.
Youth participation in research and evaluation is an international
movement, which is also represented by our authors. For example, Reima
Ana Maglajli6, Jennifer Tiffany, and their colleagues describe participatory
research in Bosnia and Herzegovina, an area affected by political violence
in recent years. With support from a global UNICEF initiative,
adults launched a project in which young people in three towns assessed
conditions related to HIV/AIDS, drug use, and human rights. Young researchers
gathered information and produced recommendations.
Louise Chawla and David Driskell describe the Growing Up in Cities
Project supported by UNESCO, an initiative inspired by the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child to promote participation in
communities. They describe a case study in Bangalore, India in which
young people played active roles. They conclude that young people are
able and willing to participate in this way, that the most effective approach
is when youth and adults work together, and that adult decision
makers do not always have accurate information about such possibilities.
Who has responsibility for facilitation of youth participation? Although
participation initiatives might be youth-led, adult-led, or intergenerational
in their origins, we recognize that none of the ones described here is truly
youth-led. However, we reiterate that the quality of participation is not contingent
on this approach, and that it is as likely that quality youth participation
might be adult-led or intergenerational as it is that youth leadership
might not be participatory.
Some authors address the roles of young people as peer facilitators.
Nance Wilson, Meredith Minkler, Stefan Dasho, Roxanne Carrillo,
Nina Wallerstein, and Diego Garcia describe the training of high school
and graduate students as peer facilitators of a university-community
partnership which involves elementary school students in research
6 YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CHANGE
which promotes problem-solving, social action, and civic participation
among underserved elementary school youth. Their work represents a
youth-to-youth model in which some young people learn best from others
who are slightly older and have more experience than they.
Julie A. Scheve, Daniel F. Perkins, and Claudia Mincemoyer describe
collaborative teams in which youth and adults work together in
intergenerational partnerships. Because young people are often isolated
from adults, this approach enables them to connect with adult allies,
gain adult support, and collaborate in activities which have potential for
community change.
Youth development or youth organizing? Although social workers
often conceptualize youth participation as a form of youth development
and distinguish this from traditional provision of services to at-risk
youth, young people also play roles as organizers and planners of initiatives
which increase their involvement and build healthier communi-
ties.
None of the articles here is about youth organizing as an approach
in which young people take initiative and organize groups on their
own. Michelle Alberti Gambone, Hanh Cao Yu, Heather LewisCharp,
Cynthia L. Sipe, and Johanna Lacoe examine the differences
among these and other efforts. They examine different types of agencies
and find that there are significant differences in outcomes
among youth organizing, identity-support, and traditional youth development
organizations in terms of outcomes like civic activism
and identity development. Youth organizing agencies show higher
levels of youth leadership, decision making, and community involvement.
There is no a priori reason why youth development efforts
cannot serve as a vehicle for activism, but their research
suggests that this is not now the case.
Overall, we are heartened that social workers, public health workers,
and others are increasing the involvement of young people in the community,
reflecting upon their experience, and writing about the lessons
learned from empirically-based practice. We believe that strengthening
youth participation as a subject study will contribute to the scope and
quality of its practice, and hope that these articles will contribute to the
process.
Social workers and other professionals are ideally positioned for
strengthening youth participation for community change. If only a fraction
of them were to take leadership for fostering this work in their respective
fields, the results would be significant.
Introduction 7
It is a pleasure to acknowledge some of those whose work made
this volume possible. We appreciate the editors of the Journal of
Community Practice for their encouragement of our efforts, Katie
Richards-Schuster for her experience and expertise with the content
of the work, and Ana Santiago for her management of the process
from the initial call for papers to the final preparation of manuscripts.
We also appreciate our many reviewers, for their collegial contributions
to our common purpose.
REFERENCES
Driskell, D. (2002). Creating better cities with children and youth: A manual for participation.
Paris/London: Earthscan/Unesco Publishing.
Finn, J.L. (2001). Text and turbulence: Representing adolescence as pathology in the
human services. Childhood, 8, 167-192.
Hart, R.D. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving
young citizens in community development and environmental care. New York/London:
Unicef/Earthscan.
HoSang, D. (2003). Youth and community organizing today. New York: Funders’ Collaborative
on Youth Organizing.
LIST OF SPECIAL ISSUE REVIEWERS:
YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CHANGE
A special thanks to those who reviewed for this collection, including:
Terrence Allen, Ann Rosegrant Alvarez, Tony Alvarez, Darlyne
Bailey, Rick Battistoni, Adam Becker, Marcia Bombyk, Gary L.
Bowen, Pam Brown, Julio Cammarota, E. Summerson Carr, Louise
Chawla, Julian Chow, Melvin Delgado, Dave Dobbie, Jacquelynne
Eccles, Kristin Michelle Ferguson, Janet Finn, Robert Fisher, Connie
Flanagan, Sondra Fogel, Helen Fox, Andy Furco, Dee Gamble, Larry
Gant, Charles Garvin, Dwight Giles, Shawn Ginwright, Leslie Goodyear,
Lorraine Gutiérrez, Yael Harlap, Danny HoSang, Jeff Howard,
Cheryl Hyde, Merita Irby, Jane Isaacs-Lowe, Francine Jacobs, Alice
Johnson Butterfield, Debra Jozefowicz-Simbeni, Michele A. Kelley,
Richard Lerner, Jonathan London, Flavio Marsiglia, Bart Miles, A. T.
Miller, Meredith Minkler, David P. Moxley, Ramona Mullahey, Elizabeth
Mulroy, Susan Murty, Ann Weaver Nichols, Phil Nyden, Yolanda
8 YOUTH PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CHANGE
Padilla, S. Mark Pancer, Edith Parker, Kameshwari Pothukuchi, Michael
Reisch, Cynthia Rocha, Kim Sabo, Izumi Sakamoto, Ramón
Salcido, Rosemary Sarri, Jean Schensul, Margaret Sherrard-Sherraden,
Carmen Sirianni, Lee Staples, Swojciech Sokolowski, Tracy Soska,
Teri Sullivan, Yve Susskind, Martin B. Tracy, Diane Vinokur, Alicia
Wilson-Ahlstrom, Nina Wallerstein, Karen Young, Nicole Yohalem,
and Richard Shep Zeldin.
Introduction 9