Youth
Civic Engagement: Promise and Peril
Scot
Evans and Isaac Prilleltensky
To appear in M. Ungar (Ed.). Pathways to resilience: A handbook of theory, methods, and interventions. Sage.
Recent
interest in youth civic engagement (YCE) parallels the growing attention being
paid to social capital (Putnam, 2000; Putnam
& Feldstein, 2003).
Like social capital, YCE poses promises as well as perils. In a nutshell, the
promise of YCE lies in enhanced wellness for participating youth, for their
interpersonal connections, and for the community at large. The perils lie in
accentuating the virtues of participation at the expense of changing structural
inequalities and power differentials that ultimately undermine the goods
associated with democratic participation (Nelson & Prilleltensky,
2004). These threats may prove unfounded if YCE addresses inequality,
injustice, and power differentials. But if YCE is primarily about supporting
the structures that uphold the status quo, we should proceed with caution. For
participation can easily create of impression of progress, when in fact such
engagement may only reinforce models of charity as opposed to models of
justice. Such is the case with many social capital efforts that have
proliferated in response to Putnam’s calls to revive community (Putnam, 2000; Putnam
& Feldstein, 2003).
In a thinly veiled cautionary note, Muntaner, Lynch,
and Davey Smith (2003) have characterized the flock
around social capital as “Communitarians of the world unite! Ignoring
the class, gender, and race structure” (p. 292).
But
our condemning judgment may be premature. After all, it can be argued that
before youth can engage in any kind of social justice, they have to learn how
to participate at all. Young people may first need to experience what it feels
like to move beyond the negative role of clients or adults-in-waiting into the
empowering roles of participants and valued community members (Ungar & Hum, 2004). Furthermore, it can be argued that
what we are witnessing today is the first developmental phase of a long process
designed to engage youth in civic action. Once youth master the skills of
participation, they will be able to move beyond the reinforcement of unjust
social structures -- perhaps. In the second part of this chapter we examine the
half full of the YCE cup. In the third part we turn our attention to the half
empty. For us, the fullness of the cup depends on the ability of the YCE
movement to address injustice and power inequalities every step of the way.
Although engagement is a part of wellness and justice, they are not isomorphic.
History is replete with cases of engagement that support discrimination and
exclusion of the “other.”
But
before we render a judgment on the promise and perils of civic engagement, we
have to offer criteria for what might constitute a positive or negative outcome.
Our criteria are based on the achievement of two desirable outcomes: wellness
and resilience.
Wellness is a
positive state of affairs, brought about by the simultaneous and balanced
satisfaction of personal, relational, and collective needs. Wellness emerges
from the synergistic interaction of needs at three levels (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2004; Prilleltensky
& Nelson, 2002; Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001a, 2001b). At the personal level,
individuals have to meet needs for a sense of control, hope, optimism, physical
and psychological growth, stimulation, health, meaning and spirituality. At the
second level, healthy relations need to satisfy requirements for mutual
respect, appreciation for diversity, caring and compassion. At the third level,
communities have to promote a fair and equitable distribution of power and
resources, democratic means to make decisions, adequate access to health
services, decent housing and employment, a clean environment, accessible
transportation, and food security (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2004; Prilleltensky
& Nelson, 2002).
Though not an exhaustive list, these needs represent some of the basic
requirements of wellness. Maximal wellness may be said to occur when both individuals
and their communities as a whole benefit from the satisfaction of needs at all
levels. For example, as a private citizen, the resident of a community derives
tangible benefits from access to universal health care, high quality schools,
and safe communities. Communities, as collective entities, benefit from
institutions that promote participation, employment, and health and from
individuals who support these health-enhancing entities (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2004; Putnam, 2000)
But how do we meet these
needs? The fulfillment of needs depends on values, resources, programs, and
policies. Values are primordial because they determine priorities for the
generation and distribution of resources, programs, and policies. Parallel to
the three levels of wellness, values may be organized along a continuum that
ranges from the personal to the collective (Prilleltensky
& Nelson, 2002).
At one end, people require freedom and self-determination to exercise control
over their lives. In the middle of the range, people require respect,
participation, and a sense of community. This is reflected in the values of
solidarity and fraternity. At the collective end, communities have to promote
justice, fairness and equality.
Values must achieve
equilibrium. Too much emphasis on self-determination diminishes fraternity and
solidarity, whereas too much emphasis on the collective thwarts individual
uniqueness. People who live under communist regimes often report pressure to
conform, typically at the expense of personal liberty. A delicate balance is
required among values for personal, relational, and collective wellness.
Resources, which translate
into programs and policies such as day care, health care, unemployment
insurance and public education, are often determined by the values of the
dominant class. When self-determination is heralded as the ultimate value, and
individualism reigns, policies emphasize the need for people to solve their own
problems, in large disregard for the social conditions that lead to the
problems in the first place. In contrast, when the collective is privileged
over all other values, personal sacrifice is bound to ensue (Prilleltensky,
1997, 2001)
Unlike wellness, which is
a satisfactory state of affairs, resilience is associated with the ability to
cope under adverse circumstances. This is the case when needs at one or more
levels of wellness are inadequately met. In such situations, the individual,
family, or community are called to cope under less than ideal circumstances. As
we note below, various coping and compensating mechanisms have been shown to
support processes and outcomes of resilience. Resilience is not a personality
characteristic, nor is it a static or permanent state of affairs; rather, it is
a dynamic process, associated with -- but not identical to -- personality
features. Furthermore, as this volume makes abundantly clear, it is a quality
found at all levels of analysis, from the personal to the relational to the
collective.
Resilience and wellness
are theoretically linked, but distinct. Under conditions of adversity,
resilience must precede the promotion of wellness. Under optimal circumstances,
health and wellness are more readily achieved. But wellness, as much as
resilience, relies on values, resources, programs and policies that are
influenced by power dynamics. Those in power usually impose their values and
will onto the people, determining priorities that suit their particular
interests (Prilleltensky,
in press).
Values do not exist in a political vacuum, nor do organizations that support
children and youth.
Cowen (1991; 1994; 1996) a leading theorist of
wellness, defined the construct as:
The positive end
of a hypothetical adjustment continuum – an ideal we should strive continually
to approach. ... Key pathways to wellness, for all of us, start with the
crucial needs to form wholesome attachments and acquire age-appropriate
competencies in early childhood. Those steps, vital in their own right, also
lay down a base for the good, or not so good, outcomes that follow. Other
cornerstones of a wellness approach include engineering settings and
environments that facilitate adaptation, fostering autonomy, support and
empowerment, and promoting skills needed to cope effectively with stress. (1996, p. 246)
While Cowen asserts that health and
wellness derive from multiple sources, internal and external to the child,
including opportunities for empowerment, his definition is psycho-centric in
its focus on the individual and family. A broader view of health has been
proposed in the Canadian federal government report Mental Health for Canadians: Striking a Balance (Epp,
1988). According to the Epp
report, health not only involves individual well-being, but equality and social
justice as well. We concur with Wiley and Rappaport (2000) who argued that neither
wellness nor resilience can be explained in the absence of a power analysis.
So
far we have established criteria for what constitutes wellness and resilience.
In addition, we have argued that neither concept can be fully grasped without
accounting for power differentials. This brief discussion enables us to assess
the actual and potential outcomes of YCE in light of wellness and resilience
and in light of power dynamics.
One of the important developmental and protective
factors to consider in YCE is self-efficacy: the perception that one can
achieve desired goals through one’s action (Bandura,
1989).
To foster development, youth need opportunities to be efficacious and to make a
difference. They have a need for “mattering” (Eccles et al., 2002). Opportunities to do things
that make a real difference build self-efficacy.
Like Cowen (1996), we believe that wellness and
self-efficacy hinge upon experiences and feelings that promote competence and skills. Children and youth can develop mastery and sense of control
in family, school, and community settings. As they mature into youth and young
adulthood, they may also expand their competencies through participation in
social and civic affairs (Pancer
& Pratt, 1999).
It is important to young people’s definition of self as resilient to not only
experience opportunities that enhance their personal skills and competencies,
but also their political competence (Ungar, 2004).
Competencies and self-efficacy develop through participation in different
settings, especially when children and youth have a voice and can influence
those settings. As personal and political competence increases, so does their
sense of control over the settings in which they find themselves. While many
settings provide children and youth with opportunities for participation,
opportunities that develop political competence, power, and self-determination
are limited.
Community
participation and prosocial activities appear to offer
young people valuable opportunities to work on important developmental tasks.
Researchers have documented how opportunities for meaningful involvement
contribute to the development of
protective factors (Benson, 1997; Catalano,
Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Lerner,
2004[SE1];
Lerner & Benson, 2003; Scales & Leffert,
1999).
With sufficient opportunities for involvement in meaningful activities, and
adequate supports, young people may overcome
negative experiences and even thrive. Michael Ungar
(2004), in his research with high-risk teens, found that “experiences that
enhance capacities, promote self-determination, increase participation; and
distribute power and justice” (p. 285) have the potential to promote wellness
enhancing alternate discourses.
Ongoing exposure
to positive experiences, settings, and people, enhances the acquisition of assets. Adolescents who
spend time in communities that offer rich developmental opportunities
experience less risk and show
evidence of higher rates of positive development in a variety of domains,
including school achievement, employment, family life, relationships, and life
satisfaction in general (Eccles, & Gootman, 2002; Lerner, 2004).
As young people enter adolescence, they have a
need to have some control over events
and a say in decisions that affect their lives. Evidence suggests that a strong
sense of self, confidence in ability to
cope with challenges, and experiences of task completion are protective
factors (Rutter,
1987).
Mastery over a difficult situation reinforces efforts to take action, which, in
turn, precipitates positive chain reactions, including social acceptance.
Acceptance, in turn, leads to new opportunities and expanded roles within the community (Bandura,
1989; Rutter, 1987; Wyman et al., 2000).
Evans (2004)
witnessed such positive chain reaction as it was unfolding. After a group of
young people learned how much interest some check-cashing outlets in their
neighborhood were charging their customers, they were eager to spread the
information. They felt empowered and
energized by the information they gained. When they shared the information with
others, they were treated as experts, which in turn contributed to their
self-efficacy. After the first presentation, they were asked to present to
other groups, businesses, and organizations. A group participant described the
experience as follows:
At first I
got up there and was thinking that they weren’t going to be interested, we’re a
bunch of kids that don’t really know what adults have to go through. People
were really listening and saying yeah, that’s true. They were really listening
to us and saying like “Wow that’s wild 313% [interest]. I can’t believe that
these youth really know stuff like that; they know more than I know.” They were
really asking us questions. Man that’s really touching people. (Evans, 2004,
submitted for publication)
These young
people have been rewarded for their work. They have been invited to share their
knowledge across their community, to lead a class at their school on the
subject, and to present their material to a national youth organization in the
nation’s capital. Opportunities like this, that stretch and challenge youth
with demanding tasks, have been shown to protect
against current and future adversity (see Masten,
Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Prilleltensky
et al., 2001a; Rutter, 1987; Werner, 1995).
In addition to skills, control, and
self-efficacy, voice and decision-making
power are also correlated with positive developmental outcomes. Voice and
choice define our sense of agency and contribute to positive psychosocial
development. Simply put, young people feel important and part of something
bigger than themselves – part of a community.
Young
people speak of embracing opportunities to contribute in a variety of settings.
These opportunities, it seems, appear to be reinforcing. The more youth
experience opportunities to have a voice, the more they find their voice and
want to contribute. They also begin to see how much value their voice can have
for their community (Catalano et al., 2002). This is how a young person
describes how it feels to be included in organizational decisions:
“It makes
you feel like a person, like you are an equal. Teens can have a good idea or an
opinion and it is important. Adults need to know. It makes you feel important
to know that you can have a say. It’s important to have a say so cause we are
the one’s who will be in charge soon.” (Evans, 2004, submitted for
publication).
Power
and control are determinants of voice and choice. Sometimes this is
accomplished through collaborative means, and sometimes it is achieved through
conflict. But in either case, they support voice and choice (Prilleltensky
et al., 2001a, 2001b).
Intellectual, social, and cognitive skills
are also correlated with resilience (Garmezy,
1985; Masten et al., 1990; Werner, 1995). Handling complex interpersonal
and social situations requires multifaceted thinking. Developing these
capacities is a gradual and ongoing process that requires extensive experience
and exposure to community conflict (Clark, 1988; A. E.
Keating, 1990).
Unfortunately, we often expect young people to develop these competencies
without providing in vivo opportunities in a supportive climate. Studies
support the notion that opportunities for participation and problem-solving
promote responsibility and lead to
positive developmental outcomes for young people (Catalano et al., 2002; Rutter, 1987). Experiences of this sort foster empowerment,
perceptions of control and self-efficacy (Lord & Hutchison,
1993; Prilleltensky et al., 2001a; Rutter, 1987).
Empowering
opportunities often grow from voluntary structured activities and service to
others. Studies indicate that participation in well-designed activities during
non-school time is associated with development of positive identity, increased initiative, and positive relationships with
diverse peers and adults, better school
achievement, reduced rates of dropping out of school, reduced delinquency, and
more positive outcomes in adulthood (Barber, Eccles, &
Stone, 2001; Youniss & Yates, 1997; Youniss, Yates, & Su, 1997). Werner and Smith (1992) found that those in their
study who were the most resilient as adults tended to have taken on various
kinds of helping responsibilities as adolescents, whether paid work or caring
for ailing family members.
Community service,
volunteering, and service learning have been associated directly or indirectly
with a wide range of positive developmental outcomes (see Scales & Leffert, 1999 for a thorough review of this literature ). The learning benefits and
potential positive outcomes are magnified when the activities take place in
quality settings and when an intentional reflective component is built into the
structure of the experience (Eyler
& Giles, 1999).
Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that young people can benefit by
looking more critically at the broader society and at the barriers facing their
families and communities (Lewis-Charp, Cao Yu, Soukamneuth, & Lacoe, 2003). Youth organizing and civic
activism offer new ways of working with young people. Young people benefit by
learning how to participate in a group action process, build consensus, and set
aside personal interests in order to consider those of the collective (Lewis-Charp et al., 2003). With this approach, youth
are assets and agents capable of transforming their toxic environments, not
simply individuals who need to develop resiliency and resistance to them (Ginwright
& James, 2002).
Adolescents are potential
agents of change in their own lives and in the community. Through meaningful
civic and political involvement young people can develop the skills and
capacities that foster resilience and help transform
communities at the same time. Youth can play important roles in educating, organizing, and taking action on
issues of social justice .
Families, schools, neighborhoods, community- and faith-based organizations can
facilitate youth and community development by creating opportunities for
teenagers to play meaningful roles, influence decisions, help others, and
partner with adults in addressing the
root causes of suffering in their communities (Lerner, 2004).
John (2003) describes the
role of youth in establishing the Devon Youth Council in
In a recent study of
marginalized youth engaged in civic activism in the
As demonstrated in
the examples above, youth can play meaningful leadership roles in families,
schools, organizations, neighborhoods, and communities. If given active roles
on committees, governing boards, and other decision-making bodies, young people
can learn how to work effectively, take responsibility for important decisions,
and find their voice and power. Through participation in social and civic
affairs, young people have an opportunity to develop and expand their
competencies (Pancer
& Pratt, 1999).
Youth who are involved in these institutions are not only less likely to violate social norms but also more likely to reinforce community norms by their
participation (Youniss
et al., 1997).
A major barrier to the
healthy development of young people is the absence of opportunities to
participate meaningfully in the contexts that affect their lives. This is
especially the case for disadvantaged and marginalized youth: those who have
most to gain from participation. Just as young people are becoming ready and
able to contribute to community, they are being denied the opportunities and
supports they need for full participation (Ginwright
& James, 2002).
Well-meaning
attempts often relegate youth to token participants, with no power and no
preparation. We know of a school board charter was recently changed to create
two positions for high school students on the board. These positions, however,
did not come with voting privileges. Students can have a say, but have no power
to influence decisions.
Other
organizations are also creating slots on governing for young people, but often
neglect to prepare them to serve effectively in these roles. The culture of
these bodies and the structure of the meetings remain largely adult-centered.
In addition, they are held at locations and times inconvenient for youth.
Furthermore, the content and format of meetings is not adjusted to meet the
needs of youth participants.
Organizations that
want increased youth participation in decision-making must be willing to alter
their processes so that youth can play an authentic role (Lewis-Charp et al., 2003). If our aim is to promote
youth engagement in civic matters, for their personal development and for community
well-being, we must do more to better facilitate their full participation.
Many risks are faced by
youth who join fanatical groups that meet their needs for belonging while
indoctrinating them in hatred. History is replete with examples of young people
joining fascist groups or religious extremists bent on ethnic cleansing or
final solutions. The bonding created by such organizations decimates any shred
of possible bridging across ethnic, religious, or sexually diverse groups.
We do not wish to
romanticize involvement in civic engagement. Like other associations, they may
establish negative dynamics that can potentially damage self-esteem and exclude
people from full participation. Joining a civic association is only the first
step. What happens there once a young person has joined depends on many
factors, including leadership, sense of community, and social support.
In Bowling Alone, Putnam (2000) described the perils of
bonding at the expense of bridging. While sense of cohesion is a desirable
quality in communities, it often breeds exclusion. When exclusion is combined
with intolerance, dangerous outcomes are possible, as in discrimination,
oppression, exploitation and extermination. These are not exaggerated claims.
The many ethnic wars that took place in last century and continue today prove
that this is no idle threat. The ultimate question is engagement for what? In
the absence of freedom, respect for diversity, equality and justice, the
bonding generated by civic associations may lead to dogmatism, racism, sexism
and xenophobia.
Challenges to idealism of YCE
As noted in the
introduction to our chapter, the promise of YCE is threatened by the peril of
idealism. Unless the engagement we promote for youth includes a critical
analysis of the power dynamics that exclude them from full participation, the
peril may outweigh the promise. We should remember that many of the injustices
perpetrated against the poor and the marginalized are carried out by the very
institutions we want youth to join: schools, local government, social services.
How can we ensure that the type of engagement we foster in youth is different
from mere reinforcement of the status quo? These doubts, similar to the ones
leveled by Nelson and Prilleltensky (2004) concerning
social capital should cause us to pause. Unless it is accompanied by social
change, YCE, as much as social capital, can limit its contribution to the
promotion of person-centered capacities that are ultimately undermined by the
presence of overwhelming environmental and social odds against youth.
In their extensive
review of programs for positive youth development, Catalano et al (2002)
recognize an extensive list of positive personal, relational, and collective
outcomes. However, there is no mention of injustice, inequality, or power
differentials. Most of the outcomes may be safely designated “apolitical.” Out
of twenty five evaluated programs with strong research designs,
nineteen
effective programs showed positive changes in youth behavior, including
significant improvements in interpersonal skills, quality of peer and adult
relationships, self-control, problem solving, cognitive competencies,
self-efficacy, commitment to schooling, and academic achievement. Twenty-four
effective programs showed significant improvements in problem behaviors,
including drug and alcohol use, school misbehavior, aggressive behavior,
violence, truancy, high risk sexual behavior, and smoking. (Catalano et al.,
2002, NP)
As may be seen, most of the positive outcomes
reported deal with personal and interpersonal skills, none of which call for
critical thinking or sociopolitical development. This is not surprising, given
that by definition positive youth development programs were characterized by
the following features:
1. Promotes bonding
2. Fosters resilience
3. Promotes social competence
4. Promotes emotional competence
5. Promotes cognitive competence
6. Promotes behavioral competence
7. Promotes moral competence
8. Fosters self-determination
9. Fosters spirituality
10. Fosters self-efficacy
11. Fosters clear and positive identity
12. Fosters belief in the future
13. Provides recognition for positive behavior
14. Provides opportunities for prosocial
involvement
15. Fosters prosocial norms (Catalano et al.,
2002, NP).
While the last two features address social norms, the scope
of the programs reviewed by the authors is narrow and apolitical indeed.
Conclusion
As the literature
suggests, there is some evidence that civic activism can be a pathway to
well-being and resilience for youth and for communities (Ginwright
& James, 2002; John, 2003; Lerner, 2004; Lewis-Charp
et al., 2003; Morsillo & Prilleltensky,
in press).
In addition to the personal skills that accrue through YCE, these opportunities
hold the potential to contribute to community well-being in three primary ways:
(a) analyzing power in social relationships, (b) promoting social change, and
(c) acting collectively (Ginwright
& James, 2002).
Traditional after-school and youth development organizations and programs can
better foster youth and community wellness by shifting their activities toward
youth organizing and civic activism. This will not be easy however. There are
powerful internal and external barriers for organizations to do this. Many
adults lack the critical awareness of how social and political factors
influence well-being and regard political activism as not kosher.
How do we enable positive individual and
community outcomes and how do we thwart negative ones? How do we prevent
cooptation of YCE and how do we merge the lessons of participation with the
insights of injustice? Efforts are under way to merge hitherto fragmented
roles: the helping role with the change agent role, the ameliorative role with
the transformative role, the clinical role with the community builder role, and
the caring role with the justice role (Prilleltensky
& Nelson, 2002; Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2003; this book). For as long as we envision
the contribution of YCE as merely ameliorative, enhancing personal capacities
without linking competencies to social justice, YCE will not fare better than
many programs that limit their contributions to person-centered outcomes.
Territorialism, parochialism, and acquired
ignorance have prevented the creation of new roles for helpers and youth
workers. It is unacceptable to delegate social change to politicians who, in
the United States, have been unable to provide universal health care and ratify
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; in Australia and
Canada have been unable to improve the quality of life for aboriginal people;
and who all over the world ignore the plight of youth and the poor. Adults
working with youth, and youth themselves, need to join hands in learning how to
address personal, relational, and collective wellness at the same time.
Splitting roles into “fixers” and “changers” is inconceivable. Humans and
societies require integrative roles for citizens. It is a chimera to believe
that once adults and youth “put their house in order” they will be in a
position to contribute to the common good. The common good cannot wait. In
fact, part of “putting their own house in order” is to enhance the common good.
The personal good is inextricably tied to the common good. YCE cannot afford to
go the path of “personal skills only.” Personal and relational wellness are essential but insufficient parts of wellness.
Without collective wellness, and without YCE actively contributing to it, personal
and relational wellness are bound to suffer. Youth
workers have a responsibility to merge strategies for personal with collective
well-being.
It is interesting to note the stark contrast
between multiple personal outcomes and scant community outcomes in youth
programs (Catalano et al., 2002; Lerner, 2004). This discrepancy reflects the
very strategies and aims of programs. Judging from the available evidence, most
youth programs designed to improve positive and civic development concentrate
on personal, cognitive and social skills, to the detriment of political
understanding of the conditions that lead to youth exclusion, discrimination,
and poverty. Most programs reviewed by Lerner (2004) and Catalano et al (2002)
look remarkably didactic, person-centered, and wedded to charity models of
well-being. Few are the programs that strive to challenge the status quo (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, in
press) and address injustice.
In our programs and in our general
interactions with youth, it seems clear that our aim should be to support young
people in building capacities and to create opportunities for youth to work
alongside adults to address harmful conditions. We foster resilience and
promote human and community development by equipping youth with skills and by
providing them with opportunities to use them in ways to challenge inequality.
This is a dynamic, experiential, and self-reinforcing process. Youth gain
skills, a sense of belonging, and a deeper understanding of themselves and the
world through social action. Youth are more inclined to act as they develop
skills, interpersonal competencies, and socio-political awareness.
But
programs are only one way to foster participation and social conscience. We
need to look beyond programs and services as we create ways to build capacities
and opportunities for healthy development. Developmental theory might suggest
that programs and services should be the fall-back position and a sure sign
that the natural facilitation of development has broken down (Kegan,
1982).
Parents and families surely play a crucial role. However, the community as a
whole may be the most important holding environment for thriving (Kegan,
1982; Lerner, 2004; Winnicott, 1965). As a culture, we need to do
a better job supporting the developing young person as he or she develops
self-sufficiency, competence, identity, and political agency. Adults in all
corners of the community can look for ways to give young people the opportunity
to have a voice in public contexts and in the decisions that affect their
lives.
We
agree with John McKnight (1995) who suggests a community
vision where the marginalized are not treated as clients, but instead are
“incorporated into community to experience a network of relationships, work,
recreation, friendship, support, and the political power of being a citizen”
(p. 169). The aim is to create communities where resources facilitate personal
power and control as well as collective well-being. It is incumbent on us to
join with youth to create more supportive structures and to confront injustice
and oppression.
References
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in
social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.
Barber,
B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever happened to the jock,
the brain, and the princess? Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity
involvement and social identity. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 16(5), 429-455.
Benson,
P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids : what communities must do to raise caring and
responsible children and adolescents (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Catalano,
R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H.
S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United
States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development
programs. Prevention
and Treatment, 5, NP.
Clark,
R. M. (1988). Critical Factors in Why
Disadvantaged Students Succeed or Fail in School. New York: Academy for
Educational Development.
Cowen, E. (1991). In pursuit of wellness.
American Psychologist, 46, 404-408.
Cowen, E. (1994). The enhancement of psychological wellness:
Challenges and opportunities. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 149-179.
Cowen, E. (1996). The ontogenesis of primary prevention:
Lengthy strides and stubbed toes. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 235-249.
Eccles,
J. S., Gootman, J. A., (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Epp, J. (1988). Mental
health for Canadians: Striking a balance: Minister of Supplies and
Services.
Evans,
S. D. (2004). Youth Sense of Community: Voice and Power in Community Contexts. Manuscript in preparation, Peabody College
of Vanderbilt University.
Eyler, J., &
Giles, D. (1999). Where's the
learning in service-learning? (1st ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Garmezy, N. (1985). The NIMH-Israeli high-risk study:
Commendation, comments, and cautions. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 11(3), 349-353.
Ginwright, S.,
& James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice,
organizing, and youth development. In B. Kirshner (Ed.),
Youth participation: Improving
institutions and communities (pp. 27-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
John, M. (2003). Children's rights and power. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Keating,
A. E. (1990). Adolescent Thinking. In S. S. Feldman
& G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the
Threshold: The Developing Adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Kegan, R. (1982). The
evolving self : problem and process in human
development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lerner,
R. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic
engagement among America's youth. London: Sage.
Lerner, R. M., & Benson, P. L. (2003). Developmental assets and asset-building communities : implications for research, policy, and
practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Lewis-Charp, H., Cao
Yu, H., Soukamneuth, S., & Lacoe,
J. (2003). Extending the Reach of
Youth Development Through Civic ACtivism:
Outcomes of the Youth Leadership for Development Initiative: Social Policy
Research Associates.
Lord,
J., & Hutchison, P. (1993). The process of empowerment: Implications for
theory and practice. Canadian Journal of
Community Mental Health, 12(1), 5-22.
Masten, A. S.,
Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990).
Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who
overcome adversity. Development and
Psychopathology, 2(4), 425-444.
McKnight,
J. (1995). The Careless Society:
Community and its Counterfeits. New York: BasicBooks.
Moane, G. (1999). Gender
and colonialism: A psychological analysis of oppression and liberation. London:
Macmillan.
Morsillo, J., & Prilleltensky,
I. (in press). Social action with youth: Interventions, Evaluation, and psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology.
Muntaner, C.,
Lynch, J., & Davey Smith, G. (2003). Social capital and the Third way in public health. In R. Hofrichter (Ed.), Health and social justice (pp. 285-304).
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I.
(2004). Community psychology: In
pursuit of liberation and well-being: Palgrave/Macmillan.
O'Neill,
J. (1994). The missing child in liberal
theory: University of Toronto Press.
Pancer, S. M.,
& Pratt, M. (1999). Social and family determinants
of community and political involvement in Canadian youth. In M. Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.), Community Service and Civic Engagement in
Youth: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Prilleltensky, I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse and the
status quo. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Values, assumptions, and
practices: Assessing the moral implications of psychological discourse and
action. American Psychologist, 47,
517-535.
Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community
psychology: Moving towards social justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29,
747-777.
Prilleltensky, I. (in press). The role of power in
wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical
validity. Journal of
Community Psychology.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing
Psychology Critically: Making a Difference in Diverse Settings: Macmillan
Press.
Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., & Peirson,
L. (2001a). The role of power and control in children's lives: An ecological
analysis of pathways toward wellness, resilience and problems. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 11(2), 143-158.
Prilleltensky,
I., Nelson, G., & Peirson, L. (Eds.).
(2001b). Promoting family wellness and preventing child
maltreatment: University or Toronto Press.
Putnam,
R. (2000). Bowling
alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R., & Feldstein, L. (2003). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Rutter, M.
(1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective
mechanisms. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316-331.
Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999).
Developmental Assets: A Synthesis of the
Scientific Research on Adolescent Development. Minneapolis: Search
Institute.
Ungar, M. (2004). Nurturing hidden resilience in troubled youth. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Ungar, M., & Hum, M. (2004). Mistaken identities: Canadian youth and
their search for a place in their communities. paper presented at …
Werner,
E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
4(3), 81-85.
Wiley, A., & Rappaport, J. (2000).
Empowerment, wellness, and the politics of development.
In D. Cicchetti, J. Rappaport,
I. Sandler & R. Weissberg
(Eds.), The promotion of wellness in
children and adolescents (pp. 59-100). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League
of America.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). Maturational processes and the facilitating
environment. New York: International Universities Press.
Wyman,
P. A., Sandler, I., Wolchik,
S., & Nelson, K. (2000). Resilience as cumulative competence promotion and
stress protection: Theory and intervention. In D. Cicchetti,
J. Rappaport, I. Sandler
& R. P. Weissberg (Eds.), The Promotion of Wellness in Children and Adolescents. Washington,
DC: Child Welfare league of America.
Youniss, J.,
& Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth.
Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Youniss, J.,
Yates, M., & Su, Y. (1997). Social integration: Community service
and marijuana use in high school seniors. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 245-262.
[SE1]Did
you add this? I don’t see it in the ref list. Is it the 2004 one?