CHAPTER 22
Ivonne Chand O’Neal
Abstract
Creative Youth Development (CYD) strategically employs the arts and humanities to promote flourishing in youth by linking arts programming to personal youth experiences, providing asset-based safe spaces that emphasize belonging, the development of relationships, and social skills at high levels of expectation to facilitate optimal learning among youth. The current chapter identifies the deep connections between the CYD movement and the study of human flourishing by first providing a brief progressive history of this work culminating in the discussion of two case studies—the Mosaic Model and Arts Amplify Youth!—illustrating how youth from diverse backgrounds found a place where, through the arts and humanities, they could be heard, could feel safe, and could surround themselves with adults and peers who genuinely cared about their well-being, while fostering their creativity, strengthening their sense of self, and developing their own voice to serve as advocates in their own communities.
Key Words: creative youth development, CYD, positive youth development, well-being, youth voice, youth-driven, Mosaic Model, Arts Amplify Youth!, empowered self, youth participatory evaluation
Youth who are provided with opportunities, support, and motivation are primed to lead, engage with their communities, and thrive. The arts and humanities provide an engaging, personal, poetic, and often reality-based schema within which youth can participate in creative experiences. Creative youth development (CYD) has emerged as a term used to describe these experiences through a substantial body of work and theory of practice that combines expression, creative problem-solving, and inquiry with positive youth development principles, igniting creativity, building emotional stability, and engaging youth in the active building of life skills—key tenets also found in the field of positive psychology. For the purpose of this discussion, the arts will be conceptualized as an outcome or applied representation of a humanities framework. More specifically, humanities themes, including cultural traditions, family histories, gender politics, and immigration stories, influence the artworks of many of the youth participating in CYD programs throughout the United States, and though both the arts and humanities are intricately interwoven and equally essential to CYD efforts, the arts are typically the term used to describe the culminating works of CYD efforts.
The current chapter serves to identify the deep connections between the CYD movement and the study of human flourishing by first providing a brief progressive history of this work with key themes of the movement, followed by two current project examples that underscore how the arts and humanities can be applied in the CYD context to help youth flourish. One example is youth-centered, and one is youth-led; both are designed to investigate well-being, safety, and other flourishing themes. An analysis of these case studies will connect outcomes with real-world scenarios rich with unexpected surprises, inventive solutions, and implications for how studies of positive psychology in the arts and humanities can serve as an organizing framework for future research in CYD.
The Emergence of the Creative Youth Development Movement
The twentieth century launched an earnest concern for the care and well-being of our nation’s youth with the discovery that adolescence serves as a unique transitional period between childhood and adulthood during which advanced reasoning skills are developed, including the ability to explore a full range of possibilities inherent in a situation, the ability to think hypothetically, and the ability to use logical thought processes. With this realization came an increased sense of responsibility for the care and welfare of young people. In the 1950s, increases in juvenile crime and concerns about troubled youth led to the start of major federal funding initiatives in the United States to address these issues. These trends in juvenile behaviors accelerated in the 1960s, as did national rates of poverty, out-of-wedlock childbirths, divorce, and single parenthood.
At first, interventions to support youth and families were mainly responses to existing crises. Efforts were focused on more immediate goals at the time, including reducing crime and transforming poor character. As the nation bore witness to the increase in youth problems, interventions and treatments for a wide range of specific problems were developed. Over the last four decades, policies and services designed to reduce the problem behaviors of troubled youth have dramatically increased. The effectiveness of these programs has been documented in a variety of research studies on substance abuse, teen pregnancy, conduct and antisocial behavior, and academic failure (Agee, 1979; Cooper et al., 1983; DeLeon & Zeigenfuss, 1986). Prevention approaches also began four decades ago with emphasis placed on supporting youth before problems occurred. Many of these positive youth development approaches changed in response to program evaluations that documented lack of positive impact on academic failure, delinquent behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, and drug use (Ennet et al., 1994; Kirby et al., 1989).
A pivotal moment in the field occurred as researchers and service providers incorporated results from longitudinal studies that identified key predictors of problem behaviors in youth into their program efforts. The resulting new generation of prevention efforts were strategically aimed at the use of longitudinal outcomes to interrupt the process leading to specific problem behaviors. For example, drug abuse prevention programs began to address empirically identified predictors, including peer and social influences to use drugs, as well as social norms that condone and promote such behaviors (Elickson & Bell, 1990; Pentz et al., 1989; Arkes & Iguchi, 2008). These prevention efforts were often guided by theories on how people make decisions, including the Theory of Reasoned Action (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980; Morrison et al., 1994) and the Health Belief Model (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988), and mainly focused on single problem behaviors.
In the 1980s, the approach to focus on single problem behaviors came under increasing criticism. The main prevention models at the time were formulated to examine the co-occurrence of problem behaviors within a single child, as well as the common predictors of multiple problem behaviors. Practitioners and investigators were also encouraged to incorporate what was known about environmental predictors and interactions between the individual and the environment. It was during this time that many advocated for a focus on factors that promoted positive youth development—work that is clearly in alignment with positive psychology themes that center on the arts and humanities. Clear consensus among practitioners began to develop, and the idea that a successful transition to adulthood requires more than avoiding drugs, promiscuous behavior, or school failure began to emerge. The advancement of children’s social, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive development began to be perceived as the key to preventing problem behaviors themselves (W. T. Grant Consortium, 1992). This shift in focus can be seen as the precursor to the CYD movement.
A movement with historic roots, CYD is experiencing a renaissance with advances in visibility, organizing, and interdisciplinary support. The field is uniting and building on research, publications, and model programs about the characteristics, approaches, impact, and outcomes of quality CYD programs. CYD is an intentional, holistic practice that combines hands-on art-making and skill-building in the arts, humanities, and sciences with development of life skills to support young people in successfully participating in adolescence and navigating into adulthood. CYD organizations and programs encompass those working in arts-, humanities-, and science-based youth development, with an emphasis on creative inquiry and expression (Montgomery, 2017). CYD programs position young people as active agents of their own change, with inherent strengths and skills to be nurtured and developed (Heath, Soep, & Roach, 1998).
Early CYD programs began as a means to safely occupy youth during out-of-school time (OST). The focus has since shifted to a dynamic community-based arts education initiative intentionally engaging youth at high levels to contribute to acquiring skills in artistic disciplines, substantial learning, and enhanced critical thinking (Lampert, 2011; Holloway & LeCompte, 2001), resulting in a number of outcomes consistent with studies in human flourishing, including such benefits as heightened confidence, physical and psychological safety, caring relationships, sense of agency, community connection, and belonging (Quinn, 1999; Dworkin, Larson, & Hansen, 2003; Chand O’Neal, Tadik, et al., 2019). Studies examining CYD outcomes examine constructs as constellations or themes, recognizing that behaviors are often intertwined, and are influenced by many complex factors. Based on this supposition, studies have begun to establish the link between adolescent engagement, efficacy, and responsibility with the amplification of youth voice and adolescent engagement (Chand O’Neal & Goldberg, 2019).
Early Positive Youth Development studies document the effectiveness of programs housed within such organizations as the Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, museums, performing arts centers, and various grassroots organizations. Older children and teenagers facing difficult circumstances demonstrated increased academic achievement, a heightened capacity for self-assessment, and a strong sense of what a positive future could look like by involvement in programs for as little as three hours, three days a week, for one full year (Heath, Soep, & Roach, 1998).
Themes central to CYD have become prevalent at a number of levels as the movement has grown. For example, at an international level, organizations including USAID have utilized a Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework that parallels CYD aims in multiple ways. At the state level, organizations like Mass Cultural Council have provided CYD programming for over twenty years, and have also found that effective CYD programs approach young people as agents of their own change, with skills and dispositions that are to be nurtured. At each of these levels, multiple agencies and organizations have set forth a number of key aspects of successful CYD programs that can be summarized in seven essential components:
1.Provide safe and healthy youth spaces. Promoting safe spaces—both physical and emotional—is critical to these environments. Youth must feel protected, secure, and nurtured at all times. Establishing clear ground rules for personal interactions, processes for dealing with emergencies, and activities that foster mutual respect and trust are strategies to facilitate feelings of safety.
2.Emphasize belonging and membership. Programs that work foster activities where youth feel included regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disabilities, or other factors. These programs also identify activities that provide a positive sense of belonging (schools, sports, community service, faith-based youth group, etc.)
3.Are assets-based. In successful CYD programs, youth are seen as “partners in learning” and “resources in the community” rather than “problems in need of fixing” or “recipients of services.” By working with youth to identify and build upon preexisting strengths, these programs extend their vision to the full, healthy development of all youth. Examples of such “assets-based” programming include activities that uncover youth talent and expertise; skill-building projects; and community service, entrepreneurial, and part-time job opportunities.
4.Foster the development of positive relationships and social skills. Effective CYD programs facilitate the development of stable relationships through peer and adult mentorships and adult role models. Successful programs may provide community- and team-building activities; one-on-one time with adult leaders; and rituals that promote a sense of belonging.
5.Are youth-driven. In programs that succeed, caring adults help youth become agents of their own development by facilitating personal goal-setting and monitoring. By actively participating in the design and implementation of programming, youth develop a sense of ownership, responsibility, independence, and initiative. In successful programs, youth have a significant voice in shaping their projects, the program, and, when appropriate, the organization. Youth also have involvement in decision-making, and opportunities to partner with adults.
6.Set high expectations for growth and learning. Effective CYD programs provide opportunities and encouragement for young people to take risks within a supportive environment. Through rigorous skill-building instruction, youth are required to commit to high but realistic levels of time and effort, and are provided the resources to ensure success. Young people experiment with taking chances, exploring the unfamiliar, and pushing themselves to new levels of achievement. Culminating artistic activities, such as final performances, exhibitions, readings, and spoken word performance, create “safe opportunities” by challenging youth to meet goals, adhere to timelines, support their peers, and create products they are proud to share with audiences. Effective programs include activities that build competencies in the arts, humanities, or sciences and provide clear expectations with strong, consistent, and professional adult instruction and guidance.
7.Address the broader context in which creative youth development operates. Successful CYD programs are inclusive and strive to effect change by providing programming in the context of the local community. They respond to the larger context in which they function by including schools, foster care programs, and other youth support organizations central to the needs of their population. Examples include a collaborative base of planning; shared support of the young people with families and community organizations; and activities that deal with local, national, global, and historical issues (Mass Cultural Council, 2019; Hinson, Kapungu, Jessee, et al., 2016).
Theoretical Connections between Literature on Well-Being and Tenets of Creative Youth Development
A number of negative generalizations about adolescents are held by society, with urban adolescents serving as their primary targets; yet, research suggests that there is a great deal of positive adjustment and resiliency among urban youth. They are able to adapt to challenges and threatening situations in spite of the lack of support found in their environment (D’Imperio et al., 2000). Though many live in high-risk contexts, youth can overcome adversity and experience healthy development (Werner, 1989). Specifically, extrafamilial support is a protective factor that is critical to the positive adjustment of children in high-risk contexts (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Positive relationships with teachers and other adults are also major protectors against negative environmental pressures (Chand O’Neal, 2015c). Positive adult relationships can serve a significant role in the lives of disadvantaged urban youth, substantially minimizing risks for negative outcomes (Chand O’Neal, I. (under review)). Building Superheroes: Mentorship as a Component of Creative Youth Development through an Examination of the Impact of Mentoring on Arts Amplifying Youth! Leaders. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. Ryan, Miller-Loessi, & Nieri, 2007).
During adolescence, a sense of belonging is also important. Membership in different groups and subcultures offers an environment of social connectedness and acceptance. Some of these subcultures, such as substance users and gangs, however, offer these social connections in more negative contexts, often resulting in elevated levels of violence and victimization. The resulting goal is to involve youth in positive activities that support their developmental needs in affirmative ways, through such avenues as extracurricular activities and community-based programs. Research has found that youth who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to use substances, due to less unsupervised time and prosocial bonding with adults at these activities (Catalano, Kosterman, Hawkins, Newcomb, & Abbot, 1996).
In addition, creating and maintaining a strong sense of self-esteem and overall sense of self is critical for at-risk youth to succeed in urban environments. Studies have found that high school “high achievers” exhibit patterns of (1) developing a strong belief in self, (2) having a cadre of supportive adults around them, (3) having a network of other high-achieving peers, (4) being involved in extracurricular activities, (5) challenging their learning experiences, (6) having personal characteristics that include strong motivation and appreciation of their cultural background and having a strong sense of willpower, (7) being highly resilient, and (8) having strong family support (Hebert & Reis, 1999). Furthermore, the existing literature suggests that these types of characteristics can be promoted through highly effective youth development programs, as illustrated in the following case studies. These two examples highlight the integration of the arts and humanities into applied CYD work with the understanding that though the humanities may not consistently be mentioned in CYD policy, they are a primary influence in CYD programming, as evidenced by the inclusion of literature, cultural history, gender politics, and social justice philosophy serving as the foundation for the majority of the culminating artistic works.
Case Studies of Effective CYD Programs That Focus on Flourishing Outcomes
Case Study 1: The Mosaic Model, Detroit, Michigan
The Mosaic Youth Theater of Detroit serves as an example of an effective CYD program that has strategically used the arts and humanities as a springboard to launch youth into challenging their own creative capabilities. Mosaic was established with a dream for urban youth to pursue their artistic passions. Recognized for its high-quality theatrical and musical programs and performances, Mosaic’s mission extends well beyond excellence on stage—it seeks to motivate and inspire its youth to pursue excellence in life.
The Mosaic Model as a theory of change is operationalized by three mechanisms that serve to guide young artists to achieve goals central to positive youth development and support success in life: high expectations, a supportive and accepting environment, and the empowerment of its young artists.
The mechanism of high expectations is reflected in Mosaic’s insistence on total commitment from their young artists, as well as the dedication of the artist-teachers who act as coaches and the support system for these youth. The Mosaic Model inspires youth to achieve beyond their own expectations by treating youth as professionals and promoting meaningful challenge within a consistent and predictable structure (Gutierrez & Simmons, 2008). Research asserts that youth learn best in environments that provide information and support at a level that is at or above their current level of cognitive functioning, also known as the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Similarly, studies also suggest that successful arts programs that promote complexity in learning experience and refute the tendency to simplify are the most effective at passionately engaging students (Seidel, 1999).
Environment, as a mechanism, was identified by Bronfenbrenner (1994) as a setting that impacts youth development. Taking this concept one step further, the Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth has identified a number of features of positive developmental settings for youth programs, including physically and psychologically supportive environments, composed of health-promoting facilities and practices that increase safe peer interactions, as well as settings where caring, loving, and competent adults provide secure attachments and serve as good mentors and managers, providing scaffolding for learning (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Mosaic promotes findings supported by studies in youth development underscoring the capacity for youth to express themselves fully through the arts and humanities, to speak with their own voice, to think through problems for themselves, and to have a greater respect for individual viewpoints, traditions, and beliefs. Mosaic takes these concepts one step further by asserting that the program tolerates no less than the total acceptance of the “whole person” as a key tenet of the program. This is a critical element of safety, particularly for the diverse population of youth in its program, and has been documented as a necessary, youth-identified component of arts programs in urban environments (Chand O’Neal & Goldberg, 2020). Mosaic also explicitly promotes tolerance beyond individual expression and provides opportunities for sociocultural identity formation and support for cultural competence.
The third mechanism operationalized by the Mosaic Model is empowerment, which is promoted in several ways. First, active and participatory learning is emphasized as an important tool for personal and professional growth, and is supported by evidence identifying active learning as a method that requires youth to act on the learning material, which entails a cycle of receiving basic instruction, practicing new behaviors, and receiving feedback on the new behaviors until mastery is achieved (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007).
Specific CYD outcomes reported by Mosaic alumni include the following (excerpts from Chand O’Neal (under review). Gutierrez & Spencer, 2008):
Artistic Skill Building and Employability Skills
The achievements of Mosaic in teaching young artists the discipline and skills of acting, singing, and the technical side of theatre are evidenced by: (a) the success of and recognition received from its performances, (b) the success Mosaic alumni have found professionally, and (c) its own evaluation data in which alumni report that the program has been extremely successful in developing advanced acting, singing, or technical skills.
The Mosaic Model promotes employability skills. For example, Mosaic alumni reported they received important and transferable skills that enhance employability, including: creativity, giving and receiving productive feedback, speaking in public, time management, leadership,
and working effectively with peers.
Academic Achievement
Mosaic takes great pride in the success of their student-artists in the area of academic achievement. Evaluation data presented from the alumni survey corroborate with the hypothesis that Mosaic positively impacts academic achievement, as a vast majority of alumni reported that their participation improved their ability to maintain high academic performance in school, develop effective study skills, improve their academic standing, influenced their decision to apply to college/university, and see themselves as capable of academic success.
Positive Self Image and Social Capital
Beyond artistry and academics, Mosaic believes that participation enhances young artists’ socio-emotional development. Alumni report that the program helped them to develop and maintain a positive sense of self/identity, experience personal growth and transformation, and had a positive impact on developing social capital as young artists, including their ability to develop a sense of belonging to the Mosaic family and develop strong and trusting friendships with other young people.
The case study of the Mosaic Model summarized a three-year evaluation conducted by the University of Michigan identifying the key elements of effective community arts programming that promote creative youth development. This model is one example of an effective CYD program that articulates a theory of change, provides a basis for strategic planning, ongoing evaluation, continuous quality improvement, and sustainability through arts mentorship, resulting in increased artistic, academic, and employability skills, as well as positive self-image and social capital for urban youth in Detroit, Michigan.
Case Study 2: Arts Amplify Youth (AAY!)!, San Diego, California
The Arts Amplify Youth! (AAY!) CYD case study examines a new, energetic grassroots youth-led enterprise based in San Diego, California, and is a second example of a successful CYD program that capitalizes on the arts and humanities to connect urban youth with their heritage, identity, neighborhoods, and communities. AAY! is housed in the broader Art = Opportunity Initiative, based at Center Artes of California State University at San Marcos, which is a research-based initiative focusing on providing access to the arts to community youth. This inclusive program targets all children and youth enrolled in public school in the greater San Diego metropolitan area through exemplary arts integration and arts education practices. This multifaceted initiative is a large web of in- and out-of-school partners, including the AjA Project, TranscenDANCE, La Jolla Playhouse, San Diego Opera, Izcalli, SOULcial workers, Rock-n-Roll Camp for Girls, and A Reason To Survive (ARTS). The diversity of partnerships points to the inclusion of the arts and humanities in community programming to meet the needs of young people from extremely diverse backgrounds, including homeless youth, youth in foster care, and those impacted by the current immigration crisis.
The mission of AAY! is simple: Arts making a change by youth for youth. For the past two years, in response to the question, how can we bring art to youth in a meaningful way?, adult mentors have worked in the background as youth leaders have assembled weekly to identify youth-relevant themes to populate the annual AAY! Youth Summit. The inaugural 2018 Summit theme centered around four key words—diversity, inclusion, equity, and change. In year two, AAY! leaders identified safety as the theme most relevant to today’s youth. The following excerpt from Chand O’Neal and Goldberg (2020) provides an account of how astute AAY! youth leaders were in identifying the topic of safety as the theme for the 2019 AAY! Youth Summit:
On April 27, 2019, at 11:23 a.m., a shooting took place inside a synagogue in Poway, California. At exactly the same time, less than 30 miles away, youth gathered at the second annual Arts Amplify Youth (AAY!) Summit to identify what it means to feel safe—emotionally, spiritually, sexually, physically, artistically, and intellectually. Ethnic minority youth from foster, homeless, and disenfranchised circumstances were among the groups present to discuss and engage in youth-designed arts workshops on safety—a theme they identified as central to their lives. This youth-led initiative used the arts to teach their peers how to identify, create, and sustain safe spaces in their lives dominated by adults and formalized systems that do not include youth voice. Ethnographic research revealed that a high percentage of ethnic youth in these environments feel unsafe around the adults in their lives and are often subject to discrimination, abuse, neglect, and identity dysmorphia.
The AAY! leaders listened to their peers and served to amplify youth voices around the theme of safety through thoughtful participatory workshops in which they created environments for their peers to explore what a safe space must include, how to build them, identify them, and how to use the arts and humanities to amplify their voice to make a change in their communities around the theme of safety.
Evaluation efforts pertaining to the AAY! initiative are multi-pronged, and so far have included a qualitative component which focused on the AAY! youth leaders and their experiences on the theme of mentorship. Questions focused on challenges and successes and how each was met, what the youth leaders learned, and how they would use these experiences to inform future mentor/mentee relationships. The following themes emerged from the content analysis (Chand O’Neal & Goldberg, 2020).
The mentorship felt more like a partnership.
AAY! leaders felt heard, respected, and validated in their relationships with their mentors, and believed they were in more of a partnership than a mentor/mentee relationship. They stated that based on this relationship, when given the opportunity to mentor in the future, they would want people to feel as empowered as they did in this process. They learned what it was like to be heard with consistency; not just when it was convenient; but when it was inconvenient and unpopular. They felt supported and believed that their adult mentors “had their back.” They said that this was one of the few times in their lives that they had such a positive relationship with adults.
A connection was made between arts as an idea and arts as an application.
AAY! leaders learned what process looks like in a very tangible way. They brainstormed ideas and used some parts and pieces, merged some things together, and threw other components out, all with the goal of building a workshop that used the arts and humanities to express what they believed in a way that would draw their peers in through oral histories, spoken word, drama, cultural traditions, and visual art. They wanted to convey to their peers how impactful the arts can be to heal, provide a safe space, and help you “find your people.”
Personal transformation.
AAY! leaders noted their own transformation from the beginning of the weekly meetings, where many initially felt reluctant to share their ideas or provide feedback. As time went on and they experienced how AAY! meetings were structured as a safe space, where ideas grow and flourish, they mentioned their comfort with opening up and sharing their ideas, and offering feedback to their friends, recognizing that they were all on the same side and shared the same goal of making the AAY! Youth Summit the best it could be. They talked about belonging to this group, knowing that they can count on these friends to “be there for them” based on the trust developed during the weekly meetings. They plan to replicate this process in other parts of their lives—including school clubs and other youth meetings.
In a recent landscape analysis commissioned by Americans for the Arts (2019), Arnold, Dolenc, & Wells (2012) identified essential features of the CYD framework as involving: (1) the presence of adults who fostered skill, community building, and hope for youth; (2) youth who were seen as resources to be developed rather than problems to be fixed; and (3) programs that created spaces of belonging where youth feel safe, cared for, and empowered. In many of the analyzed studies, instead of emphasizing specific outcomes, focus centered on constructing evaluations with a comprehensive approach to youth development in mind. Though early in its multiphase evaluation, the emerging findings of the AAY! evaluation are consistent with program evaluations in the nascent field of CYD, and are breaking new ground as the youth are engaging in innovative forms of youth participatory evaluation. The AAY! evaluation is in year two of implementation, and in its next phase will incorporate youth to design and lead the evaluation efforts. The inclusion of youth in the evaluation process is critical to its success and sustainability as a youth-led project. When isolated from community development, youth development efforts are stunted in their ability to cultivate young people’s individual growth, their membership in communities, and their ability to effect institutional and community change. At best, what has been called an objectifying model deprives youth of valuable learning opportunities and relationships; at worst, it leads to youth alienation and resentment of the implied low expectations and the cultural and political disconnect from their communities (London & Erbstein, 2003).
The Two Case Studies and Themes of Flourishing
The two presented case studies identify two different approaches in which the field of CYD addresses themes of flourishing through the arts and humanities. In the Mosaic Model, themes that emerged included increased artistic, academic, and employability skills, as well as positive self-image and social capital. In the AAY! example, the identified outcomes centered on respect, social justice, and personal transformation. Both programs serve as exemplary ways in which youth are learning how to change their futures.
The literature on CYD outcomes identifies three key themes that are consistent with flourishing, or how to address obstacles to flourishing, including (1) the empowered self, (2) the skillful artist, and (3) the community contributor (Jalea, 2019). Using different terms, these themes have been articulated as organizational values by groups such as Dream Yard (Empower. Create. Connect), the Boston Youth Evaluation Project (I am. I create. We connect), Destiny Arts Center (Peaceful. Powerful. Creative), and Mosaic Youth Theatre (Self. Skill. Society) (Jalea, 2019).
The theme of empowered self has evolved from earlier studies in CYD, focusing on teamwork, decision-making, and communication skills, to developing a comprehensive and robust sense of self by realizing participants’ full inner potential (Levine, 2002). This refers to developing or enhancing attributes such as confidence, integrity, honesty, self-esteem, responsibility, resilience, moral character, and overall self-worth. Various organizations have described this in terms of “influencing students’ capacities to be powerful” (Destiny Art Center), or to encourage youth to “evolve as unique individuals” (artworxLA), or develop “empathy and connection to empower the individual” (Yerba Buena Center for the Arts) (Jalea, 2019).
In addressing the theme of the skillful artist, the emphasis in current CYD programs goes well beyond the focus of merely building technical artistic skill through the humanities framework, but to use these techniques to develop skills in all domains of youth life. Emphasis is placed on self-motivation, decision-making, and the refinement of essential employability skills. It is important to note, however, that this renewed focus also encompasses traditional assessments of academic achievements, such as accessing post-secondary educational opportunities, scholarship, and performance on standardized tests. An example of this type of emphasis can be seen in the case of Mosaic, “helping young people to learn to manage their lives effectively by teaching skills, providing resources, and developing their talents and interests” by providing “opportunities for skill building in physical, intellectual, psychological, emotional, and social arenas” (Gutiérrez & Spencer, 2008).
Finally, addressing the theme of the community contributor, the notable characteristic of CYD programs is the commitment to championing youth engagement with the community. Jalea (2019) emphasizes that these programs highlight the importance of adopting the skills needed to not only identify socially pressing issues, but also underscore the importance of having youth actively contribute to the communities to which they are inextricably connected. Such engagement is mediated through many concepts that include social justice, cultural competence, conflict resolution, love, peace, and unity, but all revolve around the call for youth to be “active agents for social change in their communities,” as Destiny Arts Center articulates in their theory of change. This call to action is distilled into outcomes such as nurturing empathy, or as “respect for diversity, community involvement, and positive social capital” (Gutiérrez & Spencer, 2008), and is quantified into short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals that progressively integrate youth into their communities—moving from forming positive bonds with those different from themselves to eventually gaining recognition for their service.
What Are the Emerging Trends in the Evaluation of This Work?
Across the field of creative youth development, projects have increasingly incorporated what is termed “youth participatory evaluation” (Checkoway & Gutierrez, 2007; Sabo Flores, 2008; Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2006). This approach considers youth as resources rather than subjects of the evaluation, and places them squarely in the middle of the evaluation process as leaders, consultants, and co-creators. With appropriate support, youth can be included in the development of research questions, the identification of the sample, collecting data, analyzing data, and definitely making recommendations for program improvements.
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future Work
The field of CYD has evolved from a discipline shaped by examinations of deficit-based approaches to youth development, or fixing what is wrong, to a position focusing on what can be done to promote positive dispositions, approaches, strategies, and life skills as options for youth to engage with their communities as agents of change. The arts and humanities serve as an anchor to ground this movement in the culture, personal histories, and real-life experiences of the youth and communities being served. Authentic connections are made between current youth-centered life experiences and the lives they are inspired to lead. These approaches and strategies are captured in the seven key components identified by international and local agencies that serve youth, and include providing asset-based safe spaces that emphasize belonging, fostering the development of relationships and social skills at high levels of expectation to facilitate optimal learning and growth among youth. The two presented case studies highlighted how these components were implemented in real-world settings—in both Detroit and San Diego—with actual youth who were diverse in their backgrounds, ethnicities, living situations, family structures, and emotional health. What is common to both programs, and underscores human flourishing themes, is that the youth found a place where, through the arts and humanities, they could be heard, could feel safe, and could surround themselves with adults and peers who genuinely cared about their well-being while fostering their creativity, honing their artistic skills, respecting their heritage and personal histories, and strengthening their sense of self to enable them to thrive in a world where they often felt unseen. Of critical importance is that youth in both programs developed their own voice, and learned how to use it to better equip them to serve as advocates in their own communities.
Recommendations for future studies in CYD are twofold; I add my voice to the growing number of researchers in the field (see Swaback, 2014; Jalea, 2019) who suggest that our program evaluations and research studies offer separate findings; but what are we really learning, and how are we improving our programs based on this collective interdisciplinary evidence? Creating a central repository of assessments, logic models, theories of change, and additional resources is essential to sharing knowledge and applying it to improve existing programs, and to develop new program models based on what we learn. In addition, future CYD studies should also examine themes found in the creativity and social emotional learning (SEL) literatures that focus on creative ideation, divergent thinking, as well as belonging, emotional regulation, and empathy. The examination of these constructs together will provide an even more robust picture of how the arts and humanities are instrumental in impacting programs targeting youth, preparing them for an unknown future by better understanding how cognitive and social emotional mechanisms influence action. Finally, creating more opportunities for youth participatory evaluation is also critical. By combining youth-led efforts with multi-method approaches, we will learn from the youth themselves what speaks to them, and how to give them the tools they need to institute change in their own lives, peer groups, and communities.
Creative Youth Development, as a growing field and with hundreds of exemplary programs throughout the United States and abroad, contributes significantly to young people’s sense of self, artistry, and community advocacy. The field has identified multiple paths for advancement and is poised for new breakthroughs in research and policy development. However, what remains most essential to this work is to apply what we have learned to increase the capacity of our youth to flourish.
References
Agee, V. L. (1979). Treatment of the violent incorrigible adolescent. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Arkes, A., & Iguchi, M. (2008). How predictors of perscription drugs vary by age. Journal of Drug Issues, 38, 1027–1043.
Arnold, M.E., Dolenc, B., & Wells, E.E. (2012). Youth Community Engagement: A Recipe for Success. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 1, 56–65.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological model of human development. In T. Husten & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 3–27). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Newcomb, M. D., & Abbot, R. D. (1996). Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance use: A test of the social development model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 429–455.
Chand O’Neal, I. (under review). Building Superheroes: Mentorship as a Component of Creative Youth Development through an Examination of the Impact of Mentoring on Arts Amplifying Youth! Leaders. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning.
Chand O’Neal, I. (2015c). The Trajectory of Artistic Excellence: A Study of the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater. For presentation at the 2015 National Dance Education Organization Meetings, Phoenix, AZ.
Chand O’Neal, I., & Goldberg, M. (2019). Art = Opportunity mentorship model: Applications in creative economic development. For presentation at The Maryland Arts Summit: The One Conference for All the Arts in Maryland—Sharing Experiences—Bridging Communities, Baltimore, MD.
Chand O’Neal, I., & Goldberg, M. (2020). Youth-led discourse on ethnonationalism, safety, and the politics of art. For presentation at the 2020 American Association of Geographers Conference, Denver, CO.
Chand O’Neal, I., Tadik, H., Shilling, K. & Beale, J. (2019). LAUSD restorative arts education as an evidence-based application in positive psychology. For presentation at the 4th Western Positive Psychology Association Conference, Claremont, CA.
Checkoway, B., & Gutierrez, L. M. (2007). Youth participation and community change. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Checkoway, B., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2006). Participatory evaluation with young people. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Social Work.
Cooper, J. R., Altman, F., Brown, B. S., & Czechowicz, D. (1983). Research on the treatment of narcotic addiction: State of the art. Treatment Research Monograph Series. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
D’Imperio, R. L., Dubow, E. F., & Ippolito, M. F. (2000). Resilient and stress-affected adolescents in an urban setting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 129–142.
De Leon, G., & Ziegenfuss, J. T. (eds.) 1986. Therapeutic communities for addictions: Readings in theory, research and practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Durlak, J., & Weissberg, R. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Dworkin, J. B., Larsen, R., & Hansen, D. (2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(1), 17–26.
Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ellickson, P. & Bell, R.M. (1990). Prospects for Preventing Drug Use Among Young Adolescents. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3896.html. Also available in print form.
Ennett, S. T., Tobler, N. S., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1394–401.
Gutierrez, L. M., & Spencer, M. S. (2008). The Mosaic Model for youth development through the arts. Mosaic Youth Theatre of Detroit.
Heath, S. B., Soep, E., & Roach, A. (1998). Living the arts through language-learning: A report on community-based youth organizations. Americans for the Arts Monographs, 2(7), 1, 3–10, 12.
Herbert, T. P., & Reis, S. M. (1999). Culturally diverse high-achieving students in an urban high school. Urban Education, 34(4), 428–457.
Hinson, L., Kapungu, C., Jessee, C., Skinner, M., Bardini, M., & Evans-Whipp, T. (2016). Measuring positive youth development toolkit: A guide for implementers of youth programs. Washington, DC: YouthPower Learning, Making Cents International.
Holloway, D. L., & LeCompte, M. D. (2011). Becoming somebody! How arts programs support positive identity for middle school girls. Education and Urban Society, 33(4), 354–366.
Jalea, J. (2019). Creative youth development toolkit: Landscape analysis. Americans for the Arts.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.
Kirby, D., Harvey, P. D., Claussenius, D., & Novar, M. (1989). A direct mailing to teenage males about condom use: Its impact on knowledge, attitudes and sexual behavior. Family Planning Perspectives, 21, 12–18.
Lampert, N. (2011). A study of an after-school art programme and critical thinking. International Journal of Education through Art, 7(1), 55–67.
Levine, M. N. (2002). Powerful voices: Developing high-impact arts programs for teens. Surdna Foundation.
London, J. K., & Erbstein, N. (2003). Youth-led research and evaluation: Tools for youth, organizational, and community development. New Directions for Evaluation, 98, 33–45.
Mass Cultural Council. (2019). Retrieved from https://seenandheard.massculturalcouncil.org/key-characteristics-of-youth-development-programs/
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environment: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychology, 53, 205–220.
Montgomery, D. (2017). The rise of creative youth development. Arts Education Policy Review, 118, 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/106329132015.1064051
Morrison, D. M., Simpson, E. E., Gillmore, M. R., Wells, E. Q., & Hoppe, M. J. (1994). Children’s decisions about substance use: An application and extension of the theory of reasoned action. Seattle: School of Social Work, University of Washington.
Pentz, M. A., MacKinnon, D. P., Dwyer, J. H., Wang, E. Y., Hanson, W. B., Flay, B. R., & Johnson, C. A. (1989). Longitudinal effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project on regular and experimental smoking in adolescents. Preventive Medicine, 18, 304–321.
Quinn, J. (1999). Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for early teens. The Future of Children, 9(2), 96–116.
Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Q. 1988 Summer;15(2):175–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500203. PMID: 3378902.
Ryan, L. G., Miller-Loessi, K., & Nieri. T. (2007). Relationships with adults as predictors of substance use, gang involvement, and threats to safety among disadvantaged urban high-school adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 1053–1071.
Sabo Flores, K. (2008). Youth participatory evaluation: Strategies for engaging young people. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Seidel, S. (1999). Stand and unfold yourself: A monograph on the Shakespeare & Company Research Study. In E. Fiske (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of arts on learning (pp. 79–90). Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership/The President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities.
Swaback, K., et al. (2012). Boston Youth Arts Evaluation Project and Raw Art Works: The Boston Youth Arts evaluation handbook and workbook. Retrieved May 2018 from https://issuu.com/byaep/docs/byaep_handbook_issuu3_31sm
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Werner, E. E. (1989). High risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from birth to 32 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72–81.
W. T. Grant Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social Competence. (1992). Drug and alcohol prevention curricula. In J. D. Hawkins, R. F. Catalano, Jr., et al. (Eds.), Communities that care: Action for drug abuse prevention (pp. 129–148). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.