Institutions of Youth Development:The Significance

of Supportive Staff-Youth Relationships

Dawn Anderson-ButcherScottye J. CashSusan SaltzburgTheresa MidleDebra Pace

SUMMARY. Youth development organizations are key institutionsthat contribute to healthy outcomes for youths. The development of car-ing staff-youth relationships is one key youth development programstrategy. Using structural equation modeling, the present study exam-ined the importance of these relationships on impacting school-relatedattitudes and behaviors among 149 youth participants in a Boys & GirlsClub program. Results indicate that staff-youth relationships are posi-

Dawn Anderson-Butcher, PhD, Scottye J. Cash, PhD, Susan Saltzburg, PhD,Theresa Midle, MSW, and Debra Pace, PhD are affiliated with The Ohio State Univer-sity.

Address correspondence to: Dawn Anderson-Butcher, 325 Stillman Hall, 1947 Col-lege Road, College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210(E-mail: anderson-butcher.1@osu.edu).

The authors acknowledge support provided by Ellen Betit, Pat Cox, and Bob Dunn,as well as statistical analyses assistance from Tom Gregoire.

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Institutions of Youth Development: The Significance of SupportiveStaff-Youth Relationships.” Anderson-Butcher, Dawn et al. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Hu-man Behavior in the Social Environment (The Haworth Social Work Practice Press, an imprint of TheHaworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 9, No. 1/2, 2004, pp. 83-99; and: How Institutions Are Shaping the Future of OurChildren: For Better or for Worse? (ed: Catherine N. Dulmus, and Karen M. Sowers) The Haworth SocialWork Practice Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2004, pp. 83-99. Single or multiple copies of thisarticle 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].

http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHBSE 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J137v9n01_07 83

tively related to the development of pro-social school behaviors, andnegatively associated with the display of anti-social school behaviors.Findings point to the importance of supportive staff-youth relationshipswithin institutions serving youths. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>© 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Staff-youth relationships, youth development organiza-tions, after school programs, pro- and anti-social behaviors

Youth development organizations have been increasingly identifiedas important institutions that promote healthy youth development. Re-cent reviews have documented many positive impacts, including en-hanced interpersonal skills, self-control, self-efficacy, commitment toschool, and academic achievement, as well as decreased problem be-haviors such as substance use, school misbehavior, aggression, truancy,and high-risk sexual behavior (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, &Hawkins, 1999; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Roth, Brooks-Gunn,Murray, & Foster, 1998). Approximately 4,000 national youth serviceorganizations such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and theYMCA exist today (Dryfoss, 1998), operating over 17,000 youth devel-opment programs across the United States (Quinn, 1999; Roth et al.,1998).

Although many outcomes associated with participation in youth de-velopment programs are noted, little is still known about what programcharacteristics specifically create positive outcomes for youths. Re-searchers have identified many key components leading to effectiveyouth development programs such as: supportive relationships withadults, opportunities to belong, positive social norms, support for effi-cacy and mattering; opportunities for skill building and competency de-velopment; integration of family-school-community efforts; long-termprogramming; recreation and sport, and structure and safety (Ander-son-Butcher, Lawson, Fallara, & Furano, 2002; Eccles & Gootman,2002; Hirsch, Roffman, Deutsch, Flynn et al., 2000; Roth et al., 1998).It is still unclear, however, which of these particular program compo-nents, or combination of features, are responsible for a specific pro-gram’s success in increasing pro-social behaviors and reducinganti-social behaviors among youth participants (Anderson- Butcher et

84 HOW INSTITUTIONS ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN

al., 2002; Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003; Catalano etal., 1999; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Fashola, 1998).

The present study is designed in response to this need. It explores theimportance of one key youth development program component: sup-portive staff-youth relationships. Specifically, it uses structural equa-tion modeling to examine how participation in youth developmentprograms builds supportive staff-youth relationships which in turn pro-motes positive attitudes and behaviors related to youths’ academicachievement.

SUPPORTIVE STAFF-YOUTH RELATIONSHIPS

Early work by McLaughlin, Irby, and Langman (1994) highlights thevalue of program leaders, or “wizards,” within youth development or-ganizations. The importance of these leaders and their roles in develop-ing caring staff-youth relationships continues to emerge as a key youthdevelopment program strategy (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2002;Catalano et al., 1999; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Halpern, Barker, &Mollard, 2000; Jekielek, Moore, Hair, & Scarupa, 2002; Mclaughlin,2000; Roth et al., 1998). As these relationships are built, Coleman(1990) proposes that simultaneously social capital is built. For instance,adults assist youths with access to otherwise unavailable resources(Flaxman, Ascher, & Harrington, 1989); support youths in their social,career, and personal goals (McPartland & Nettles, 1991); help youthswith academic success (Blechman, 1992; McPartland & Nettles, 1991;Staudt, 1995); counsel youths in relation to family and life conflicts(Halpern et al., 2000); and enhance youths’ self-esteem and pro-socialattitudes (Staudt, 1995). In essence, various adults leaders and programstaff at youth development organizations accept the responsibility tosupport, shape, and guide younger, less skilled, and/or less experiencedyouths by transmitting knowledge (Blechman, 1992), teaching new orchallenging tasks (Flaxman et al., 1988), and helping them mature, de-velop social competencies, and reach age-appropriate specific goals(Einolf, 1995). These caring adults are committed to the program and itsyouth participants; are consistent in the messages they teach; and com-municate caring while setting clear boundaries, rules, and expectations(McLaughlin, 2000).

Furthermore, adult leaders and program staff within these youth de-velopment programs oftentimes assume quasi-parental/guardian rolesas advisors and role models for high-risk youths (Anderson-Butcher &

Anderson-Butcher et al. 85

Lawson, 2001; Barron-McKeagney et al., 2001; Blechman; Hamilton &Hamilton, 1992; Haensly & Parsons, 1993; Smink, 1990; Yancey, 1998),providing psychological and emotional support that leads to attitudinaland behavioral changes (Barron-McKeagney et al., 2001; Blechman et al.,1992; Flaxman et al., 1989; Halpern et al., 2000; Roth & Brooks-Gunn,2000). This is particularly important in urban neighborhoods wheremany youths do not have significant adult role models and supports(Freedman, 1993). Similarly, Katz (1994) found that positive adult-youthrelationships can provide youths with “second chance opportunities,” asthese positive relationships with adults has been found to help at-riskyouths overcome additional adversities and to become responsible andwell-functioning adults in later life. As such, previous research hashighlighted the importance of staff-youth relationships within the con-text of youth development programs. Thus, developing an understand-ing of the relative effectiveness of these relationships in contributing topositive outcomes is critical.

PRESENT STUDY

In response, this study examines the significance of these supportivestaff-youth relationships within youth development organizations. Spe-cifically, it examines how participation in a chartered Boys & GirlsClub of America (BGCA) program is related to the development of car-ing relationships with staff, which in turn is modeled to impact bothpro-social and anti-social school-related attitudes and behaviors. Thefocus on schools is critical, as many youth development organizationsaim to support academic achievement and school success among theirparticipants (Katz, Hale, & Blank, 2002; Wynn, Meyer, & Richards-Schuster, 1999).

METHOD

Study Context

The BGCA is a community-based nonprofit youth development or-ganization that aspires to enhance social competencies among youthswhile simultaneously inspiring them to become productive and respon-sive citizens (BGCA, 1998). There are over 2,850 Clubs located acrossthe country (BGCA, 1998). BGCA have open door policies, and youths

86 HOW INSTITUTIONS ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN

participate in voluntary and drop-in basis. Programs are provided in theBGCA five core areas, including education and career development,character and leadership development, health and life skills, the arts,and sports, fitness, and recreation. Activities focus on developing socialcompetencies through substance use prevention, career exploration, ed-ucational supports, recreation and sport, and delinquency, pregnancy,and gang prevention (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2003; Kaltreider & St.Pierre, 1995; St. Pierre, Kaltreider, Mark, & Aiken, 1992). A key strat-egy within a BGCA program involves building caring, supportive adultrelationships (BGCA, 1998; Hirsch et al., 2000). These programs alsoaim to develop academic competencies within their tutoring, homeworkassistance, computer and related activities (Anderson-Butcher et al.,2003; Schinke, Cole, & Poulin, 2000). One chartered BGCA organiza-tion located in the intermountain west participated in the study.

Sample

A total of 149 youths who participated in the Boys & Girls Club wereinvolved in the study. Of those surveyed, 54.4% (n = 81) were male, and44.3% (n = 66) were female. Youths ranged in age from 7 to 18 years ofage, with a mean age of 11.27. The sample was ethnically diverse:49.3% were White, 27.4% Hispanic, 9.6% African American, 5.5%Multi-Racial, 3.4% Native American, and 4.8% Other. Nearly half(45.0%) of the youths in the study lived in a single-parent family. Theseyouths and their families were particularly mobile, as 41.7% reportedthat they had changed homes in the previous year, and similarly, 44.8%stated that they had changed schools within the past year.

Measures

Age. Youths provided their age on the survey.Gender. Youths indicated their gender by checking Male or Female.Length of Program Involvement. Youths were asked to report how

long they had been attending the Boys & Girls Club. Ratings were basedon an eight-point ordinal scale that provided choices including: Neverattended the club (0), For about a week (1), For about a month (2), For2 to 3 months (3), For 3 to 6 months (4), For 6 to 12 months (5), 1 to 2years (6), and 2+ years (7).

Staff-Youths Relationships. Youths were asked five questions relatedto their relationships with staff at the youth development program.Three of these scale items were modeled after items from the Commu-

Anderson-Butcher et al. 87

nity Rewards for Pro-social Involvement subscale of the Student Surveyof Risk and Protective Factors (Arthur, Pollard, Hawkins, & Catalano, 1997;Pollard, Catalano, Hawkins, Arthur et al., 1999). These items included:Staff at the Club notice when I am doing a good job and let me knowabout it; There are adults at the Club who are proud of me when I dosomething well; and There are adults at the Club who encourage me todo my best. One of the five scale items was similar to items from the In-terested and Caring Adults Subscale of the Protective Factors Scale(Witt, Baker, & Scott, 1996). This survey item was: There are adults atthe club I could talk to about something important. The final scale itemwas modified from Neighborhood Support and School SatisfactionSubscales of the School Success Profile (Bowen & Richman, 1997).The item was: There are adults at the Club that I trust. All five items to-gether comprised the observed variable, adult-youths relationships, andwere measured on the following response scale: NEVER (1), no (2), yes(3), and ALWAYS (4).

Anti-Social School Behaviors Factor. Five survey items from Bowenand Richman’s School Success Profile Trouble Avoidance Subscale(1997) were used as indicators of the latent variable, anti-social schoolbehaviors. Youths were asked to indicate how often in the past 30 daysthey were sent out of class for misbehavior, got in a physical fight withanother student, were put on in-school suspension (ISS), were given anout-of-school suspension (OSS), and were sent home with a warningabout attendance, grades, or behavior. Responses were made on the fol-lowing scale: Never (0), Once or Twice (1), and More Than Once orTwice (2).

Pro-Social School Behaviors Factor. Three survey items served asindicators of the latent variable, pro-social school behaviors. Youthswere asked to indicate how often in the past 30 days they enjoyed beingin school, tried to do their best in school, and helped a teacher or anotherstudent. The first two items were modified from the School Commit-ment subscale (Arthur et al., 1997; Pollard et al., 1999). The third itemwas developed especially for use in the present study. The responsescale for all pro-social school behavior items was: Never (0), Once orTwice (1), and More Than Once or Twice (2).

Procedures

One hundred forty-nine youths at an urban Boys & Girls Club partici-pated in the study. The total number of participants was determined bythe number of youths completing the survey during a predetermined

88 HOW INSTITUTIONS ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN

two-week period. The entire survey took approximately 10 to 15 min-utes to complete depending on the age and education level of the youths.For some, the survey was administered in multiple sessions allowing forenhanced attention span and motivation. All questionnaire responseswere kept confidential. Youths were given a small incentive (i.e., soda,candy bar, pizza, etc.) for their participation in the study. Questions onthe survey were not randomized.

Analyses

A structural equation model (SEM) was chosen for the analysis as itprovides a way to determine the relationship between latent factors andobserved variables (Byrne, 1994). Initially a measurement model wastested to determine if the latent structures in the model held together sta-tistically. For the anti-social school behaviors factor, the ComparativeFit Index (CFI) was .98, whereas it was .97 for the pro-social school be-haviors factor. Both are indicative of excellent fit, as Type I and II errorsare minimized if CFI is greater than or equal to .90 (Gillespie & Johnson,1998; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The variables included in the model were checkedfor kurtosis and skewness; all estimates were considered in the normalrange (+/�2).

RESULTS

The structural model is presented in Figure 1.The path from Age to Length of Program Involvement was .304 and

was significant; this path indicates that as age increases, the length oftime in the program also increases. This finding provides support to thenotion that as the youths become older, they continue to engage in thisprogram. The path between Gender and Length of Program Involve-ment was not significant, indicating that the both boys and girls con-tinue to stay in the program at similar rates. The path between Length ofProgram Involvement and the Staff-Youth Relationships equaled .166;however, it was not significant. Given that the path was not significant,it indicates that time in the program does not necessarily mean that theyouths will not have positive feelings about the staff. Therefore, thisprovides support that staff are able to make positive relationships withthe students regardless of time in the program.

Staff-Youth Relationships was inversely related to the Anti-socialSchool Behaviors Factor (�.281), and the path was significant. The

Anderson-Butcher et al. 89

Sent

out o

fcl

ass

Got

inFi

ght

Gav

eO

SSG

ave

ISS

Gav

ea

War

ning

Anti-

soci

alFa

ctor

Pros

ocia

lFa

ctor

Enjo

yed

Scho

olTr

ied

Best

inSc

hool

Hel

ped

Oth

ers

atSc

hool

Staf

f-You

thR

elat

ions

hips

Leng

thin

Prog

ram

Age

Gen

der

.304

.036

.165

�.2

81

.509

FIG

UR

E1.

Str

uctu

ralM

odel

90

path between Staff-Youths Relationships and the Pro-social School Be-haviors Factor also was significant at .509. These two paths indicatethat as youths develop relationships with the staff, the likelihood thatthey engage in anti-social school behaviors decreases and engagementin pro-social school behaviors increases.

The Comparative Fit Index for the model was .91, which indicates agood fit with the sample data (Gillespie & Johnson, 1998; Hu & Bentler,1999). Table 1 provides an overview of the different fit indices and in-formation related to the Chi-Square and Degrees of Freedom.

The Chi-Square for the model was 95.501 based on 53 Degrees ofFreedom. The Chi-Square statistic was .00032. Chi Square divided bythe Degrees of Freedom equaled 1.80 which also indicates good fit, asadequate fit can be assumed between 2.00 to 3.00 (Jöreskog & Sorbom,1981). A different model was tested which included a path betweenGender and Staff-Youth Relationships. While this path increased theCFI value to .92, the path was not significant and also did not add to thedevelopment of the model. Therefore, the original model was kept andis the focus of this paper.

DISCUSSION

The current study investigated the importance of cultivating sup-portive staff-youth relationships, otherwise known as “mentoring rela-tionships,” within the context of a youth development program. More spe-

Anderson-Butcher et al. 91

TABLE 1. Fit Indices and Statistics for Model

Value

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .906

Lisrel GFI Fit Index .904

Bollen (IFI) Fit Index .907

Chi-Square 95.501**

Degrees of Freedom

Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom

53

1.80

**p < .001

cifically, the study examined first, how length of participation in theprogram is related to the development of caring staff-youth relationship;and then explored how these relationships, in turn, affect the prevalence ofboth pro-social and anti-social school attitudes and behaviors. Addition-ally, by employing a structural equation model, the researchers were able toexamine the relational pathways between age, gender, and length of partic-ipation in the youth program, exploring their roles as antecedents to form-ing supportive staff-youth relationships.

Results suggest that supportive staff-youth relationships withinyouth development organizations can lead to heightened pro-social atti-tudes and behaviors at school and, in turn, in academic achievement,while at the same time decreasing the proclivity to engage in anti-socialbehaviors that interfere with an optimal school experience. These re-sults corroborate the findings on the benefits of incorporating caring,mentoring relationships within youth development programs. Othershave suggested that adult mentors, staff, and volunteers within theseprograms are vital in helping youths access resources generally unavail-able to them (Flaxman, Ascher, & Harrington, 1989), supporting per-sonal and career goals among youths (McPartland & Nettles, 1991),providing academic support leading to experiences of academic success(Blechman, 1992; McPartland & Nettles, 1991) and strengthening pro-social skills and attitudes (Staudt, 1995).

Additionally, age was significantly related to the length of time theyouths had participated in the program, suggesting that staff-youth rela-tionships likely serve as a sort of “glue,” further engaging and retainingyouths’ membership and involvement in the programs over time (c.f.Anderson-Butcher & Lawson, 2001). Further inquiry is needed, how-ever, as this relationship may also be simply indicative of increasing op-portunities to develop stronger relationships as youths age and continuetheir program involvement. Gender was unrelated to the length of pro-gram involvement, indicating that the boys and girls in this study partic-ipated in the program at similar rates. Somewhat surprisingly, length ofprogram involvement was not significantly related to building staff-youth relationships. One might infer from this that relationships withprogram leaders and other staff can be forged early in the process ofjoining a youth program and still hold significant meaning for theyouths. This knowledge provides impetus for creating programmaticinitiatives that further support and nurture the formation of such rela-tionships.

92 HOW INSTITUTIONS ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN

Implications

These findings suggest that the importance of staff-youth relation-ships within youth development organizations, particularly in relationto promoting academic success and school achievement. By assumingthe substantive roles that constitute the work of a mentor, including rolemodel (Yancey, 1998), coach (Smink, 1990), counselor (Martinek,Schilling, & Johnson, 2001; Smink, 1990), advocate (McPartland & Nettles,1991; Smink, 1990), and friend (Herrera, Sipe, & McClanahan, 2000;Walker & White, 1998), caring adult staff, program leaders, and volun-teers at youth development programs can have far-reaching impacts onyouths’ lives. This broad spectrum of mentor responsibilities includes:fortifying developmental competencies; strengthening relational capac-ities; providing opportunities for intellectual stimulation and growth;expanding social, recreational, and resource horizons; and instilling thehope and promise of goals and aspirations. All of these important mentoringtasks work in sync to enhance self-esteem, self-worth, and self-recogni-tion, thereby promoting the well being of youths.

The relationship between staff-youth relationships and youths adopt-ing pro-social attitudes and behaviors at school carries important rele-vancy for academic achievement. Those pro-social attitudes andbehaviors examined in the present study were: (1) enjoying school;(2) trying one’s best at school; and (3) helping a teacher or peer. Allthree of these variables speak to feeling positive about one’s experi-ence in school, demonstrating motivation and personal agency, andexhibiting altruistic interpersonal skills. Each of these areas reflects be-haviors that reinforce feeling proud about one’s efforts, productive and in-dustrious, and helpful and caring. Modeling caring, empathic behaviors(McPartland & Nettles, 1991), encouraging academic learning and profi-ciency (Martinek, et al., 2001), and instilling the desire to exert one’sbest effort (Yancey, 1998) all inspire in a young person the sense ofself-worth and accomplishment, which, in turn, lead to heightenedself-esteem and self-satisfaction.

The reduction of anti-social school behaviors also was evident in thefindings as a direct result of the development of supportive staff-youthrelationships. Those antisocial behaviors that were examined in thisstudy were: (1) being sent out of class, (2) physical fighting (at school),(3) in-school suspension, (4) out-of-school suspension, and (5) being senthome with written warning. In looking at the inverse relationship thatstaff-youth relationships had on these anti-social behaviors, the modelfurther supports the notion of reduction in negative attitudes and behav-

Anderson-Butcher et al. 93

iors as the more positive pro-social factors are introduced or reinforcedin youths’ lives. It would seem that the outcome of prolongedyouth-involvement in productive, positive behaviors (rather thanself-effacing ones) would aid in sustaining the behaviors, gradually shift-ing the youth’s focus to more self-affirming and self-rewarding endeav-ors.

In summary, as young people become invested in doing well in school,their attitudes, social behaviors, and acts of personal agency pertaining toacademic success and in turn, positive self-affirmation, will be realized.The far-reaching effects of such relationships lie at their infancy stage interms of possibilities. For youths who do not have regular access to rolemodels or adults who have the time or ability to spend time with them,the impact of a mentoring relationship could be life-altering. Thus, thecombined and overall influence of the staff-youth relationship would po-tentially have profound effects on shifting youths’ attitudes and behaviorsfrom anti-social, or self-defeating, ones to pro-social, or self-affirming,ones. While this study looked at how participation in youth developmentorganizations is related to emergence of meaningful, supportivestaff-youth relationships, and how the values internalized from thesementoring relationships are then modeled by youths through the increasedpresence of pro-social behaviors and attitudes in school and the de-creased incidents of antisocial behaviors, the scope of influence of theserelationships reaches far beyond the immediate study objectives–andinto all aspects of the youth experience. The many ways in whichyouths’ attitudes and behaviors will impact self-esteem, outlook, socialskills, problem-solving, and overall life satisfaction are boundless andbeyond the scope of this paper. This is particularly true for at-risk youngpeople who lack significant role models in their lives, and have few ex-ternal resources and diminished internal resources. The array of possi-bilities inherent in the staff-youth relationship may translate intomeaning for school dropout and retention, low academic achievement,juvenile delinquent behaviors, substance use and abuse, among themany other concerns for youths.

As such, these results suggest that caring adult-youth relationshipsimpact youths’ pro-social and anti-social attitudes and behaviors to-ward school. Given these findings, then, youth development organiza-tions ought to employ creative strategies to encourage and facilitate thedevelopment of these positive relationships. For example, organiza-tions could increase the adult to youth ratios, either by hiring additionalworkers or by seeking volunteers from local high schools and universi-ties. Youths would especially benefit if these workers and volunteers re-

94 HOW INSTITUTIONS ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN

ceived training and professional development on, for example, establishingrapport, talking to youths, providing consistent and appropriate feedback,and encouraging youths. As the number of adults at the programs increasesand as the quality of adult-youth interactions improves, we can expect en-hanced youth outcomes. Additionally, organizations could provide oppor-tunities specifically designed to enhance the development of mentoringrelationships. Examples of such opportunities include one-on-one or smallgroup tutoring programs, participating and/or attending sporting events,or long-term service projects involving adults and youths.

Limitations

This research study had several limitations which may have influ-enced the results. The study was cross-sectional in nature; data werecollected at only one point in time. Results may have differed if it hadbeen collected at several points over a longer period of time. In addition,results may be impacted by selection effects. That is, perhaps youthswho participate in these programs are more likely to develop positiverelationships with adults. Moreover, perhaps those who participate aremore likely to have other protective factors such as positive attitudesand behaviors in school. It is unclear whether these results arise fromprogram impact or whether they derive from some inherent quality inthe participants.

Future Directions

In the future, it will be beneficial to continue exploring the relation-ships between specific program features and youth development out-comes. In particular, researchers can investigate the impact of supportiveadult relationships, belonging, structure, positive social norms, opportu-nities for skill-building and competency development, and other programcomponents on youth development outcomes such as academic achieve-ment, self-esteem, and related social competencies. Anderson-Butcherand colleagues (Anderson-Butcher & Conroy, 2002; Anderson-Butcher &Fink, 2003), for example, are beginning to explore the role of belongingand its impact on pro-social behaviors. Their research has found that be-longing–more-so than attendance–explained the most variance in aca-demic and substance use behaviors among youth development programparticipants. As youth development organizations further learn the fea-tures considered critical for youth development outcomes, they can tailortheir programs accordingly to promote the most empirically-based pro-grams which are operated in the most cost efficient ways.

Anderson-Butcher et al. 95

Beyond exploring the link between key program components andoutcomes, future research should also include longitudinal work thatexamines how program participation over time relates to specific out-comes. This will enable researchers to track change and, potentially, es-tablish causal relationships between program components and youthdevelopment outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study examined youths’ participation in a Boys & Girls Club, ayouth development program. Results illustrate that although the curric-ula that is offered in youth development programs includes importantstrategies used to help youths with school, many times it is the more in-formal relationships and norms that are developed in these programsthat truly make the difference in the lives of participating youths. Thesepositive staff-youth relationships can indeed have significant impactson the academic success of youth participants. It is expected that otheroutcomes related to healthy youth development also will accrue.

REFERENCES

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Conroy, D.E. (2002). Factorial, convergent, and predictivevalidity of a measure of belonging in youth development programs. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 62(5), 857-876.

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Fink, J. (2003). The importance of a sense of belonging toyouth service agencies: A risk and protective factor analysis. Paper under review.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H.A., Fallara, L., & Furano, G. (2002). Eliciting theo-ries of change from youth care workers and youth participants. The Journal of Childand Youth Care Work, 17, 130-150.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W.S., & Ferrari, T. (2003). Participation in Boys &Girls Clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology31(1), 39-55.

Arthur, M., Pollard, J., Hawkins, J., & Catalano, R.F. (1997). Student Survey of Riskand Protective Factors. Seattle, WA: Social Development Research Group.

Barron-McKeageny, T., Woody, J.D., & D’Souza, H.J. (2001). Mentoring at-risk La-tino children and their parents: Impact on social skills and problem behaviors. Childand Adolescent Social Work Journal, 18(2), 119-136.

Blechman, E.A. (1992). Mentors for high-risk minority youth: From effective commu-nication to bicultural competence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(2), 160-169.

Bowen, G.L., & Richman, J.M. (1997). The School Success Profile. Chapel Hill, NC:The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

96 HOW INSTITUTIONS ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN

Boys & Girls Clubs of America. (1998). Building the foundation. Atlanta, GA: Author.Byrne, B.M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic

concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Catalano, R.F., Berglund, M.L., Ryan, J.A.M., Lonczak, H.S., & Hawkins, J.D. (1999).

Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluation ofpositive youth development programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. Retrieved on April 10, 2002, from: http://aspe. hhs.gov/hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Dryfoss, J. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society. New

York: Oxford University Press.Eccles, J., & Gootman, J.A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth develop-

ment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Einolf, L.H. (1995). Mentoring to prevent school drop outs. Journal of Behavioral Ed-

ucation, 5(4), 447-459.Fashola, O.S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their ef-

fectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of StudentsPlaced At-Risk.

Flaxman, E., Ascher, C., & Harrington, C. (1988). Mentoring programs and practices:An analysis of the literature. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,Institute for Urban and Minority Education.

Freedman, M. (1993). The Kindness of Strangers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Gillespie, D.F., & Johnson, K.W. (1998, February). Manual for structural equation

modeling in practice: Issues and techniques. Manual presented at Council on SocialWork in Education Faculty Development Institute, Orlando, FL.

Haensly, P.A., & Parsons, J.L. (1993). Creative, intellectual, and psychosocial devel-opment through mentorship: Relationship and stages. Youth & Society, 25(2),202-221.

Halpern, R., Barker, G., & Mollard, W. (2000). Youth programs as alternative spacesto be: A study of neighborhood youth programs in Chicago’s West Town. Youth &Society, 31(4), 469-506.

Hamilton, S.F., & Hamilton, M.A. (1992). Mentoring programs: Promise and paradox.Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (March), 546-550.

Herrera, C., Sipe, C.L., & McClanahan, W.S. (2000). Mentoring school-age children:Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs. Re-trieved on June 24, 2001 from: http://www.ppv.org/indexfiles/pubsindex.html.

Hirsch, B.J., Roffman, J.G., Deutsch, N.L., Flynn, C.A., Loder, T.L., & Pagano, M.E.(2000). Inner-city youth development organizations: Strengthening programs foradolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(2), 210-230.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indices in covariance structureanalysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-ing, 6, 1-55.

Jekielek, S.M., Moore, K.A., Hair, E.C., & Scarupa, H.J. (2002, February). Mentoring:A promising strategy for youth development. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Jöreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural rela-tionships by the methods of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National EducationalResources.

Anderson-Butcher et al. 97

Kaltreider, D.L., & St. Pierre, T.L. (1995). Beyond the schools: Strategies for imple-menting successful drug prevention programs in community youth serving organi-zations. Journal of Drug Education, 25(3), 223-237.

Katz, I., Hale, E.L., & Blank, M.J. (2002). Helping youth people succeed: Strengthen-ing and sustaining relationships between schools and youth development organiza-tions. Washington, DC: National Collaboration for Youth, Coalition forCommunity Schools, and the Institute for Educational Leadership.

Katz, M. (1997). On playing a poor hand well: Insights from the lives of those who haveovercome childhood risks and adversities. New York: Norton.

Lawson, H.A., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2001). In the best interests of the child: Youthdevelopment as a child welfare support and resources. In A.L. Sallee, H.A. Lawson,& K. Briar-Lawson (Eds.), Innovative Practices with Vulnerable Children andFamilies (pp. 245-265). Dubuque, IA: Eddie Bowers.

Martinek, T., Schilling, T., & Johnson, D. (2001). Transferring personal and social re-sponsibility of underserved youth to the classroom. The Urban Review, 33(1),29-45.

McClaughlin, M. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter foryouth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.

McLaughlin, M.W., Irby, M.A., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighbor-hood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

McPartland, J.M., & Nettles, S.M. (1991). Using community adults as advocates ormentors for at-risk middle school students: A two-year evaluation of ProjectRAISE. American Journal of Education, August, 568-586.

Pollard, J.A., Catalano, R.F., Hawkins, J.D., Arthur, M.W., & Baglioni, A.J. (1999).Measuring risk and protective factors for substance abuse, delinquency, and otherprogram behaviors in adolescent populations. Seattle, WA: Social DevelopmentResearch Group.

Quinn, J. (1999). Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs forearly teens. The Future of Children, 9(2), 96-116.

Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). What do adolescents need for healthy develop-ment? Implications for youth policy. Social Policy Report, 24(1), 3-19.

Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adoles-cents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Researchon Adolescence, 8(4), 423-459.

Schinke, S.P., Cole, K.C., & Poulin, S.R. (2000). Enhancing the educational achieve-ment of at-risk youth. Prevention Science, 1(1), 51-60.

Smink, J. (1990). Mentoring programs for at-risk youth: A dropout prevention re-search report. Clemson, SC: The National Dropout Prevention Center.

Staudt, D. (1995). Mentoring: A school-university partnership that is making a differ-ence. Paper presented at the 1995 Texas University/School Research Collaborativeat Texas A&M University, College Station.

St. Pierre, T.L., Kaltreider, D.L., Mark, M.M., & Aikin, K.J. (1992). Drug preventionin a community setting: A longitudinal study of the relative effectiveness of athree-year primary prevention program in Boys & Girls Clubs across the nation.American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(6), 673-707.

98 HOW INSTITUTIONS ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN

Witt, P.A., Baker, D., & Scott, D. (1996). Protective Factors Scale. College Station,TX: Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M Univer-sity.

Wynn, J., Meyer, S., & Richards-Schuster, K. (1999, January). Furthering education:The relationship of schools and other organizations. Paper presented at the Na-tional Invitational Conference on Improving Results for Children and Families byConnecting Collaborative Services with School Reform Efforts, Washington, DC.

Yancey, A.K. (1998). Building positive self-image in adolescents in foster care: Theuse of role models in an interactive group approach. Adolescence, 33(130),253-267.

Anderson-Butcher et al. 99