Involving Youth in Running Youth Programs: How Common and What Might it Do for Youth?

Researchers have argued that autonomy in learning settings can have motivational and educational benefits (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Student autonomy in schools may be supported in several ways including provision of academic choice (Denton, 2005), student voice (Mitra, 2006), and through supporting students’ interests, preferences, and personal goals (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). Democratic schools feature school-wide structures that may support autonomy (Apple & Beane, 2007). But these are exceptions to the rule. The very nature of compulsory education limits autonomy (Brophy, 2004). That is, support for autonomy may always be limited in a school context in which youth do not have a reasonable say in whether or not they have to be there. Informal learning environments such as teen centers and afterschool programs feature flexible content and largely voluntary attendance, foundational features which may underlie true autonomy. In such spaces, the operation of the program itself may be used as a context for learning and development—referred to here as youth program governance (YPG) practices. YPG practices may include providing opportunities for youth to lead activities, to participate in advisory boards, and to be involved in decisions about how the physical space is arranged, the activities offered, field trips, how money is spent, and even staff hiring. YPG may be considered a subset of youth-in-governance, which is defined to include youth participation both in civic governance and program governance (Bowie & Bronte-Tinkew, 2008, June; Mantooth, 2008). YPG practices and related ideas are extolled in youth development literature (O'Donoghue, Kirshner, & McLaughlin, 2006). 1 Numerous practitioner websites promote YPG and closely related practices. 2 National 4-H is perhaps the largest youth development organization in the U.S. that promotes youth-in-governance (see www.4-h.org). The provision of youth-in-governance opportunities in 4-H have been examined in a series of studies by Zeldin and colleagues (Zeldin, 2004; Zeldin, McDaniel, Topitzes, & Calvert, 2000; Zeldin & Petrokubi, 2006; Zeldin, Petrokubi, & MacNeil, 2008). These researchers have described youth-adult partnerships as interactional processes that can support youth-in-governance. However, with the exception of these studies and two reports described below, few research studies have investigated YPG or youth-in-governance. Although the provision of YPG opportunities is presumably relatively new in youth programs and may run counter to existing policies and norms (Zeldin, 2004), there are no insurmountable barriers that prevent it from becoming a common practice. Two recent reports indicate that YPG practices may be gaining in popularity. In a sample of 198 programs that serve middle and high school age youth across six large cities, Deschenes et al. (2010) found that youth input in activities offered was common, with 61% of sites reporting that they offer opportunities for youth to design or lead activities for peers or younger youth, and 55% stating they offer opportunities for youth to shape program rules. Formal youth involvement in program