Applied+Theory+and+Concepts


 * HEHD 800: Foundations of Youth Development**
 * Wiki Group 1: Applied Theory and Concepts**


 * Directions: ** In the space below, your team should provide a summary of information related to the course topic by synthesizing the key points in the readings this week, providing real-world examples and applications of the content, and identifying and linking to new resources that cover the course material. In addition, your team should b will provide at least one interesting and engaging discussion question that captures some key point/s of interest related to your team's topic. Your team will then lead this discussion for approximately 10 or 15 minutes during our synchronous class meeting on Tuesday night.

Discussion Question: Participation seems to be the gateway to getting youth to experience the other rings of engagement. It is easily argued that communities with lower incomes have less opportunities and thus lower participation rates. Also, research shows that participation rates after age 12 drop and remain low through adolescence. As youth professionals, how can we offer engaging opportunities that not only are easily accessible in all communities, especially those of a lower socio-economic status, but also provide stimulating activities that encourage continued participation throughout adolescence?

Here is the final version. If y'all need to make any changes please let us know. Feel free to add external links to the parts that are lacking but make sure they are relevant by linking them to the material explicitly. If you can meet at 6:30pm in our private room, that would rock our faces off. See you tomorrow ~Renee and Alicia

When talking about Positive Youth Development (PYD) one thing is clear- the focus of youth engagement is on ensuring that young people participate in high quality programs, and that youth may find activities they are passionate about. In a recent study by Search Institute in 2010, it was found that the more types of youth engagement opportunities youth experience, the better off they will be. Those that were highly engaged did better on academic, psychological, social-emotional and behavioral outcomes. Participation seems to be the gateway to getting youth to have positive developmental experiences and overall positive development. However, research shows that participation rates after age 12 drop and remain low through adolescence. How can we offer engaging opportunities that not only are easily accessible in all communities, especially those of a lower socio-economic status, but also provide stimulating activities that encourage continued participation throughout adolescence?

Youth today face many challenges. In out capitalist society, socioeconomic inequalities are a reality. This reality leads us as PYD advocates and leaders to believe that the youth of more impoverished backgrounds may not have the resources, inclusive of knowledge, available to them. However, one thing reflected in this week’s readings is clear:

Unchallenged + Boredom + Alienation = The manifestation of undesirable behavior in both academically successful and unsuccessful adolescence

Some factors that contribute to such manifestations today are:
 * Lack of opportunities that provoke ‘sparks’
 * Perception of Adults and respective careers
 * Lack of an established youth to adulthood transition

For one, there is certainly a lack of motivation and initiative in today’s youth culture for a variety of reasons. These reasons may prevent the development of ‘sparks’ (Benson 2008). Initiative is defined as the ability to be motivated from within and to direct one’s attention and effort toward a goal. School setting not conducive to developing initiative because the setting contains:
 * Low intrinsic motivation
 * High levels of concentration, experience with difficulty
 * Lack of connection to real world complexities
 * Adult controlled

Coincidently leisure activities that youth engage in contains:
 * High levels of intrinsic motivation
 * Low levels of concentration, experienced with ease
 * Lack of connection to real world as social peers are accepting, open minded, and perceived as less critical

In order for such motivation and ‘sparks’ to develop experiences must contain:
 * Intrinsic motivation- actions and thoughts belong, without influence, to the individual
 * Engagement to the environment- presents a parallel or simulated complexity to real world scenarios and situations, consequences inclusive
 * (Motivation + Engagement)/Time = Endurance. Also defined as a Temporal Arc. Being able to stick with an activity or situation despite set backs. Prepare, plan, practice, perform, and evaluate.

The perception of adults by today’s youth also plays a role how youth decide to spend their time or, how engaged they are in a particular activity. For several reasons: > Finally researchers not that in America’s youth there is a lack in a series of benchmarks from the journey of child to adult (Ruth Benedict, 1938). In other words there is no gradual increase in leadership or responsibility bearing opportunities. In addition, the rate of opportunities for challenges slows between elementary and middle school due to the reduction of responsibilities adolescence face in Western culture (Schlegal and Barry 1991). Now while all the above contribute in some way to youth’s perceptions of the world, scholars and researchers can not agree on definitions, characteristics, or even the ‘how’ PYD is achieved with these contexts in mind. Our summaries of this week’s readings include discussion on various definitions, theories, models, frameworks, and examples of PYD. In addition, the concept of resiliency is examined in great detail along with the outcomes of PYD.
 * Current careers lack appeal
 * Perceived barriers to achieving goals
 * Limited contact with successful adults
 * Constricted knowledge base on the “how to become a (insert career choice here)” (Lerner et al. 2001)

In 1999, Hamilton’s concept of PYD was broken into three parts and is still widely used widely (Hamiliton):
 * It is a developmental process.
 * It is a philosophy/approach to youth based programming.
 * Focused on healthy, comprehensive development of youth.

Good job in the section above! This is a good overview and integration/introduction of the content - good job at synthesis here! (BB)

Several Models Theories and Frameworks are presented in the following.

The Rings of Engagement present four critical dimensions of youth engagement: All of these dimensions are dependent on a core of authentic relationships and within a context of engaging people, places, and programs. Unlike Maslow’s hierarchy of Need (1954), Saito and Sullivan’s model are not hierarchical or in successive stages.
 * __ The Rings of Engagement (Saito and Sullivan 2011) __**
 * Participation
 * Passion
 * Voice
 * Collective Action

//Participation//: Young people participate in activities that offer opportunities to connect with positive people and places, and challenges/supports their growth and development. Noted benefits are: Psychosocial Development, Academic Achievement, Fitness, Reduced Risk Taking, Positive Identity, Civic Participation, Gateway to other engagement

//Passion//: Becoming engrossed in or passionate about something, based on experiencing the activity itself as rewarding, regardless of outcome or external rewards. Passion is marked by high levels of attention, concentration, enthusiasm, and commitment. Noted benefits of being passionate are life satisfaction, motivation for continued learning, social approval, and contributions to social good, in addition to academic achievement.

//Voice//: Young people have opportunities to voice their ideas and have input into programs, policies, and practices that affect them. Having a voice leads to enhanced sense of efficacy, problem-solving, communication, advocacy skills and academic achievement.

//Collective Action//: Youth and adults share decision-making authority as they work together to achieve shared goals within systems and/or change or create new systems. When there is collective action youth have a positive civic identity, and a sense of collective efficacy. They can also collaboratively plan, have enhanced decision-making, implementation, and social/political change skills. There is also the opportunity for ongoing civic engagement and organizing community change.

For example, the FLY program’s ([]) (the FB direct link is a great contribution! - BB) mission is to help “youth achieve their educational goals, expand their artistic talents, and develop their leadership skills.” FLY targets youth who live in east of the Anacostia River which is “one of the poorest regions of the city”. Participants of the organization come from families “who have incomes that are at least 200% below the poverty line” and 98% of them are raised by single mothers. This program fits the model because “FLY’s youth participants come back day after day and year after year because the organization is truly youth led and provides them with a unique space to discover their //voices// and develop their leadership potential.” The FLY program accomplishes this by providing: FLY’s participants were able to have a voice, and participated in collective action in the New Communities redevelopment initiative. They gave their input during the decision making process because this redevelopment initiative would affect their lives and their families- thus influencing the community. The ability for youth to participate in decision making shows the plasticity of the organization. Ten years ago, this effort may not have necessarily been needed, but as the community is making changes, they followed. New Communities Redevelopment Initiative (Good source! - BB) “Youth in Decision Making: A Study on the Impacts of Youth on Adults and Organizations,” used a sample of nineteen youths and twenty-nine adults from fifteen different organizations. Eight of the fifteen had youth as members of the board of directors for an extended period of time. The remaining seven organizations had strong ties and a past involving the youth being able to influence decision-making, but not on the same level as the other eight. The study concluded that youth led organizations have positive outcomes. In addition, the study demonstrated that including youth in “decision-making provides them with the essential opportunities and supports (i.e, challenge, relevancy, voice, caused-based action, skill-building, adult structure, and affirmation) that are consistently shown to help young people achieve mastery, compassion, and health.” The youth were not the only ones to benefit from this experience. Adults in the program:
 * Support & Services - helps develop confidence, self-esteem, and leadership skills; youth have a place to find their voice and let it be heard; youth have a stable environment for most days out of each week (four days/week during the school year; five days/week in the summer).
 * Caring and trusting relationships - someone who cares about their well-being; people they can trust when they feel like they have no one else; people who are willing to go beyond a “9-5”
 * Gradually increasing youth leadership opportunities-Most participants start the program in the 3rd or 4th grade and stay involved until they graduate from high school. They set short and long term goals, with incrementally increasing roles of engagement and responsibility. This demonstrates that positive youth development is a process that happens over a period of time. During that time
 * “…experienced the competence of youth first-hand, and began to perceive young people as legitimate, crucial contributors to organizational decision-making processes.”
 * Became reenergized and more committed to the organization.
 * “Adults felt more effective and more confident in working with and relating to youth.”


 * __ Collaborative Theory __**

The collaborative theory is the belief that youth develop positively by guidance and participation. It is also the theory that describes the relationship with youth in this theoretical approach as the relationship between the //learner// and the //guide//. In a collaborative theory, Vygotsky believes we should stop thinking of development as something that happens inside a young person’s mind, however, he goes on to say that it has more to do with the interaction between the child and other people. Whereas, Piaget says development comes from the child. Thus, expounding on the correlation between guide and learner. It describes the learner as the youth and the guide as the adult. In the guide/learner continuum it leans toward a more unobtrusive model as opposed to the adult authoritative model most commonly used in youth organizations of the past. The collaborative theory requires more interaction and engagement with youth. This theory promotes support and encouragement through behavior modeling as a means to positive youth development. Query - how might we use the collaborative theory in practice? - BB


 * __ Relationship Theory __**

The relationship theory focuses more on close relationships with adults as it is essentially one of the best forms of human development. According to, Larson & Reid, children who are born to parents who have innately strong emotional connections to them from infancy are fortunate to have an already established relationship with a caring adult. Whereas, children who are not fortunate to have such a relationship with a parent can still have a strong emotional bond with the parent figure, someone who takes on a parent role, in their life. Although, Darling, Hamilton & Shaver (2003) have argued that when youth leaders are less emotionally engaged it allows the opportunity for the youth to make decisions on their own. It gives the youth room for exploration and experimentation within the youth group. However, they never argued that being socially engaged prevents youth from making decisions. Good summary - examples in practice ? - BB

**__Social Learning Theory__**

The Social Learning Theory is the belief that rewards are more effective than punishment in shaping behavior. Punishment works sometimes but other times have unintended effects. Progressive use of reinforcement along a sequence of steps permits shaping of complex patterns of behavior. Learning theory is useful for youth development because it helps us think about what rewards youth are getting and the influence of these rewards. For example, schools establish discipline plans as a way to discipline children who break the rules. However, most schools also try to prevent actions that would result in punishment by rewarding students for positive behavior. According to, Larson R. W.& Walker K. (2005), rewarding youth as a way to promote positive behavior shapes their behavior.


 * __ The Study of Purpose __**__ (Damon & Mariano 2008) __

Consider youth's purpose- the overall direction/set of goals of one’s life that helps guide one’s choices, behaviors, and actions that is a key, necessary component is one’s identity. This theory stipulates that purpose is an indicator of PYD. This theory also uses the concept of thriving to indicate PYD. Thriving is the involvement in community benefitting contributions, which lack in selfishness.


 * __ The Study of Developmental Assets __**__ (Benson, Scales and Syvertsen, 2011) __

This particular study by the Search Institute compiled a list of 40 assets that were divided into internal assets and external assets. Internal assets are defined as “skills, competencies, and values” that fall into one of four categories: External assets are “environmental, contextual, and relational features of socializing systems” that fall into the following: This study notes that PYD and thriving occurs when external and internal assets are aligned
 * Dedication to learning
 * Affirmation of positive values
 * Ability to function, socially
 * High regard of self
 * Having a system of support
 * Gives a sense of power to youth
 * Presents a clear understanding of constraints and expectations
 * Using time effectively


 * __ The Study of Stage-Environment Fit and Motivation __**__ (Eccles, 2004; Eccles & Wigfield 2002) __

This theory examines how “contextual variables (schools, families, and youth programs)” and “individual characteristics (expectations, values)” compliment each other to facilitate PYD. This study also examines youth’s activity choice, sticking with that choice, and how youth do, is based on the individual’s intrinsic motivation, values, and expectation to meet goals. It also suggests a necessity for schools and youth programs to be developmentally appropriate - How? Any examples of how schools and youth programs might do this? What do you think "developmentally appropriate" means? - BB


 * __ The __**__ **Study of Motivation, Active Engagement, and Real-Life Challenges** (Larson 2006) __

There is a distinct emphasis on initiative, and forming connections with perceived successful adults, and peers simultaneously growing motivation and developing initiative in this theory. The Study of Motivation, Active Engagement and Real-Life Challenges also examines out of school time (OST) activities with the following outcomes: >
 * Positive outcomes- opportunities to take control of developing initiative, developing leadership skills, and social skills
 * Negative outcomes- stress, exclusion from members of peer groups, emulation of inappropriate adult-like behavior


 * __ PVEST Model __**__ (Spencer 2006) __

PVEST stands for the Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory, which takes into account other factors during development such as cultural influences and personal experience. This theory looks at how youth understand and conceptualize the following in their environment: > This model also concentrates on coping strategies that youth form in varying contexts by noting, “that youth from diverse backgrounds will experience the same events and settings through different lenses”- leads to different outcomes and/or perceptions
 * People
 * Events
 * Social structure
 * Availability or lack of opportunities


 * __ Positive Adolescent to Adult Transitions __**__ (Hamilton 1994; Hamilton & Hamilton 2009 __ )

The Passage into adulthood is marked by a change in previous social roles- from dependent to autonomous. This theory by Hamilton and Hamilton look at these changes and examines pathways from adolescence to adulthood, from a school to work perspective. This also implies a connection between adolescent and school: Transparency is seeing and seeing through the stated rules and implied rules of the job market and the education system. Permeability is the amount of energy needed to move from one plan of action to another. This theory examines how adults influence said transitions in institutions designed to support adolescence.
 * Youth that perceive a future pay-off are more likely to excel academically and avoid self destructive behavior
 * For adolescents to see link between school and adult work, transparency and permeability must be considered.

The Five C’s also have their time in the PYD spotlight and they include: These C’s have no upper limit. Refer to the figure below, which was constructed by the HEHD800 Modes of Transportation group based on (Hamilton et al, 1999). The arrows represent influence and reinforcement. For example confidence reinforces competence and vice versa. However, the five C’s can quickly get out of balance and work against one another. For example, if confidence > competence, dangerous mistakes can be made. Consequently if connection > character, superficiality is perceived. PYD is to stabilize the 5 C’s to the benefit of the individual.
 * __ The Five C’s __**__ (Lerner et al 2005) __
 * Competence
 * Confidence
 * Connection
 * Character
 * Caring

Nice model! - BB


 * __ Study of Individual Context Relational Processes and PYD __**__ (Lerner, Lerner et al 2005 __ )

This theory combines developmental asset and 5 C’s and shows how they influence each other //figure 1// (Lerner, page 49). Lerner characterizes thriving in PYD with mutualistic relations between the environment and individual and a connection to contribution. He focuses on the 5 C’s – competence, confidence, character, connection, and Caring (Eccles and Gootman, 2002; R.M. Lerner et al., 2005; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). In addition:

The assets and strengths of youth + the resources found in social contexts (family, school, and community) = PYD occurring in a healthy manner (Rhodes & Lowe, 2009; R.M. Lerner, 2004)


 * __ Step it Up 2 Thrive Theory of Change __**__ (Heck, Subramaniam and Carlos 2010 __ )

This model places youth on paths to thrive by: This theory also encourages positive adult youth connections and relationships. During the execution of this theory in settings that youth found effective and palatable, Shirley B. Heath, a linguist noted several changes in participants’ conversational structure throughout their involvement. In the beginning participants discussed superficial topics where the topics changed frequently. As time went on “If…then…” statements were used increasingly. This led to the manifestation of probability based thinking - uses of hypothetical scenarios, and should we vs. could we vs. would we types of sentence structure increased with this type of thinking. Listening skills also improved as participants were able to seek understanding from others as well as sought to be understood. The ability to speak to their audience manifested- talking to peers vs. talking to business leaders. By the end of their experience, youth were able to use the aforementioned language and thinking structures in daily life, outside of the PYD experience (Heath 1997; 1999). - Very good summary of this theoretical approach and its use in research/practice! - BB  When Maslow’s Hierarchy if needs is merged with PYD concepts you get seals with ‘positive action’ programs. These programs are school based programs including interactions with the youth, the school, and the family. Focus on self actualization during positive behaviors and actions. Broken down into six units (Flay and Allred 2003): The outcomes of positive action programs increase desirable behavior-such as improved academic standing, and improved attendance. In addition, positive action programs decrease in undesirable behavior- such as its substance abuse, that engaging in violent activities, premature sexual behavior, and other detrimental behaviors. Participants are less likely to engage in drug use, violent activities and premature sexual behavior. opportunities for participation, contribution and recognition are important for the development of youth living in extreme adversity and those who are not. These opportunities provide youth with a sense of belonging and mattering. It allows them to feel competent to do things that make a difference in their community. Some youth benefit from required helpfulness. This is when the individual is needed in their home to perform an essential task such as babysitting or preparing meals that is normally done by an adult. This allows the youth to have a sense of importance and self-worth. It is also important to properly recognize youth for what they do. Recognition can be a powerful motivating tool. This allows them to know they are appreciated and what they do is an important part of their community.Listed below are links to some additional information on protective factors. [|www.childwelfare.gov/can/factors].[]
 * Provoke youth interest
 * Adopt the growth mindset
 * Provide opportunities to reflect
 * Develop goal management strategies
 * __ Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs __**
 * Self concept
 * Positive actions for the physical and mental self
 * Social and/or emotional positive actions for responsible self management
 * Social and/or emotional positive actions for socialization
 * Social and/or emotional positive actions for honesty within the context of the self and in the context of one’s environment
 * Social and/or emotional positive actions for continuous self growth.

Excellent contributions here! The Hierarchy of Needs is a well put and well described - good use of outside resources as contributions! - BB


 * __ Constructivist Theory __**

The constructivist theory stipulates that youth are the producers of their own development. This biological theory, called the organismic model, most simply states that organisms adapt to their own environments. Youth have always been described of being a product of their environment, and they have the power to adapt to the surroundings in which they play and are raised in.

Based on the Constructivist Theory youth should find a middle ground between being taught and being allowed to figure things personally. Finding a center zone where youth are allowed to plan, implement and execute a plan benefits youth by allowing them to take ownership and have a vested interest in something. Although, some would argue that this type of freedom creates discord and confusion among the group members before getting to an end result. Some youth have argued that this method has been helpful in maturity and confidence. These characteristics may come from making decisions individually and with the support from an adult.


 * __ Sociological Theory __**

The sociological theory allows youth to focus more on understanding existing social norms while they begin to create their own social norms. Social norms have made a shift in the way today’s youth view their environment. For example, in the past a way for youth to fulfill a pastime of listening to music on cassette tapes, records, and compact discs has now become obsolete. Today, listening to music has become as easy as clicking a mouse, and downloading tunes direct from the internet. Something that began as new way of listening and purchasing music has evolved into the new social norm for youth. According to, Larson R. W.,& Walker K. (2005), developing social norms can be learned by youths in the environment, culture, families, religious faiths, etc. In any youth development program there may be norms that are unique to that program which may not be unique to another program. Therefore, acquired skills or mindsets learned in program A may be quite different in program B. Therefore, it is quite evident that youth from different cultural programs have a different framework of social norms.

This framework for PYD, referenced by Cambone and Connell in 2004, includes five organized strategies for scientist and practitioners. In order to create communities conducive to positive youth development youth development professionals must: >
 * __ The Community Action Framework __**
 * Build community capacity and conditions for change
 * Enable community to enhance and support opportunities for youth
 * Increase youth support and opportunities
 * Positively effect youth developmental outcomes
 * Allow outcomes to affect adulthood in a positive way


 * __ Theory and Characteristics of Resilience __**__ (Masten 2011 __ )

1. To be resilient: perceived as experiencing hardships and identified as ‘ok’ or doing well in terms of the outcome

2. Resilience is dynamic; as a competence varies according to age, according culture and history of the person

3. For resilience to occur: a. result of environment individual interactions that are bidirectional

b. presence of resilience in youth effect multiple levels and systems of development Perkins and Caldwell attempt to further explain the question, “How do some youth who live and develop in less than ideal circumstances mature into responsible adolescents and adults, while others succumb to the pressures in their high-risk environments and get into trouble with the police or participate regularly in unhealthy and unproductive behaviors?” This is of interest to youth leaders so we understand what programs we need to provide that teach youth skills to navigate through life’s challenges. To further explain the definition, Perkins and Caldwell offer insight on four myths associated with resiliency:

__Myth #1: All people who survive their childhood and adolescence are resilient__. All youth experience stress and adverse situation in their life but not all situations are of equal significance putting some youth at greater risk

__Myth #2: Resilient individuals are completely successful in every area of their lives__. You may not necessarily be resilient in all areas of your life. Two-thirds of kids with an abusive history were resilient in the classroom but only 21% were socially resilient.

__Myth #3: Resilience stems from an internal personality trait__. Resiliency is not a personality trait. The environmental factors of the person are an important indicator of resiliency. Resiliency must also be measured over time. Does the person’s resiliency sustain over time and do future stressors thwart the resiliency.

__Myth #4: Resiliency is rare__. Youth have self-righting tendencies that allow them to overcome stressors and develop into a normal adult. Sylvia Rockwell (2007) lists a different set of myths at the following link. The Myth That Ultimately, It Doesn’t Matter” This example can speak to everyone who has worked with youth at any level (p. 14-17). [].

Good summary and good example here! - BB

Risk factors are characterized as personal or contextual hazards that increase an individual’s vulnerability to undesirable behaviors, events or outcomes. The presence of risk factors increases the chances of negative outcomes, but does not guarantee it. Protective factors and processes promote positive development, and may negate the negative results caused by risk factors within the environment surrounding our youth. A protective factor is primarily evident in combination with a risk factor.

There are three types of protective factors: 1) Dispositional attributes of the individual such as activity level, communication skills and average intelligence. 2) Affectional ties to family that provide emotional support. 3) External support systems such as church, school, youth program that provide a belief system by which to live.

There are three primary protective processes that we need to be aware of as youth leaders as they directly affect positive youth development. These processes are listed as: a) caring relationships with non-parental adults, b) high expectations, and c) opportunities for participation, contribution and recognition. This is the idea behind the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Consider the story of Winn, a 16 year old high-schooler who decided to volunteer her time and a mentor. She was paired with 6 year old Dylan and there relationship has lasted a decade through graduations and multiple address changes. The lasting relationship they have is the cornerstone of what the organization is trying to achieve ([]). While Winn demonstrates the success of this program, there are those who are not so fortunate. Studies have shown that it can be detrimental to youth when relationships between youth and mentor last less than six months. The goal for youth leaders should be long term (Perkins and Caldwell 2005).

Through the frameworks and theories listed above it is easy for organizations to design programs that promote positive youth development. However, our knowledge of PYD is still very limited and much work is still needed to fully understand how we as youth development professionals can provide the best support and service to the youth in our programs. The following is a list of goals assembled by Saito and Sullivan in 2011 for further study of PYD:

Good! This is an excellent example of synthesis - bringing the diverse readings together! Nice job here. - BB


 * 1) 1. Useful Research – to deepen our understanding of the benefits of youth engagement. To know what works and what doesn’t. To learn what obstacles need to be overcome to do what works.
 * 2) 2. Deepen and Broaden the practice of youth engagement through training, peer learning, coaching, research etc.
 * 3) 3. Create effective communication and awareness raising tools that translate research into user friendly tools and resources.
 * 4) 4. Build system-level opportunities, resources, and technology that support collaborative training research, communication, and connects across people, programs, and communities.

The goal is to ensure that ALL young people, not just those at high risk, are surrounded by multiple captivating developmentally scaffolding opportunities for engagement and leadership in programs and communities.

References Calvert, M., McDaniel, A., Topitzes, D., & Zeldin, S. (2002). Youth in Decision-Making: A Study on the Impacts of Youth on Adults and Organizations.

[]

// Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School Connectedness: Strategies for Increasing Protective Factors Among Youth //. (2009). Retrieved January 25 2012, from [].

Evidenced Based Approach. Retrieved from [].

Grossman, Jean B, Rhodes, Jean E. (2002). The Test of Time: Predictors and Effects of Duration of Youth Mentoring Relationships. //American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2) 199-219.//

Hamilton, S.F. (1994). //Employment prospects as motivation for school achievement: Links and gaps between school and work in seven countries//. In F.K. Silbereisen & E. Todt (Eds.), //Adolescence in context: The interplay of family, school, peers, and work in adjustment//. New York, NY: Springer.

Hamilton, S.F. (1999). //A three-part definition of youth development. Unpublished manuscript//, Cornell University College of Human Ecology, Ithaca NY.

Heath, S. B. (1997, April 21). //Language and work: Learning and identity development of older children in communi~ settings// (George Miller Committee Lecture), University of Illinois.

Heath, S. B. (1999). Dimensions of language development: Lessons from older children. In A. S. Masten (Ed.), //Cultural processes in child development: The Minnesota symposium on child psychology// (Vol. 29, pp. 59-75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hurtes, Karen P, Allen Lawrence R. (2001). Measuring Resiliency in Youth: The Resiliency Attitude and Skills Profile. //Therapeutic Recreation Journal,// 35, 4, 333-337.

// Research in Action: Why Youth Mentoring Relationships End. // (2007). Retrieved January 25, 2012, from [|www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_386.pdf].

// Risk and Protective Factors, // Retrieved January 25, 2012, from [|www.childwelfare.gov/can/factors].

Rockwell, S. (1998). Overcoming Four Myths That Prevent Fostering Resilience. //Reaching Today’s Youth, 2//(3), 14-17.

Schlegel, A., & Barry, H. (1991). //Adolescence: An anthropological inquiry.// New York: Free Press

Witt, Peter A, Caldwell, Linda L. (2010.) The Rationale for Recreation Services for Youth