Authoring Action (A2) is a youth-focused, arts-based, afterschool and summer program. A2’s mission is “to transform the lives of youth and the world through the power of creative writing, spoken word, visual and media arts, film-making and leadership education that promotes positive systemic change.” Using in-depth interviews, this study aimed to understand how this arts-based program affects youth development. Participants in this study (N=36) were alums of Authoring Action (A2), interviewed when they were between the ages of 17-32. Over half identified as female (N=21). Most A2 participants were youth of color and participated in A2 between ages 13-17. Interview data were coded following several steps: generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and generating a report. Four themes describe the impacts of A2 for program participants: communication, cathartic and transformative experiences, connection, and critical consciousness. Programmatic features—getting paid to participate, shared group identity, and open access to program leaders and peers – were meaningful to youth participants. The mission and programmatic features of A2 support youth development; we discuss practices that may benefit other arts-based youth programs and the implications of such practices for youth development.
AnyonY.BenderK.KennedyH.DechantsJ. (2018). A systematic review of youth participatory action research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, youth outcomes, and future directions. Health Education & Behavior, 45(6), 865–878. http://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118769357
BallardP. J.RhoadesL.FullerL. (2020). What sets the conditions for success in community partnered evaluation work? Multiple perspectives on a small-scale research-practice partnership evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(6), 1811–1824.
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
7.
CatalanoR. F.BerglundM. L.RyanJ. A.LonczakH. S.HawkinsJ. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124. http://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260102
8.
CharmaramanL.HallG. (2011). School dropout prevention: What arts-based community and out-of-school time programs can contribute. New Directions for Youth Development, 2011(S1), 9–27.
9.
ConnerJ.ZainoK.ScarolaE. (2013). “Very powerful voices”: The influence of youth organizing on educational policy in Philadelphia. Educational Policy, 27(3), 560–588. http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812454001
10.
CrocettiE. (2017). Identity formation in adolescence: The dynamic of forming and consolidating identity commitments. Child Development Perspectives, 11(2), 145–150.
11.
DeutschN. L.JonesJ. N. (2008). “Show me an ounce of respect”: Respect and authority in adult-youth relationships in after-school programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(6), 667–688. http://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408322250
12.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P.PachanM. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6
13.
DuttonS. E. (2001). Urban youth development–Broadway style: Using theatre and group work as vehicles for positive youth development. Social Work with Groups, 23(4), 39–58. http://doi.org/10.1300/J009v23n04_04
14.
EcclesJ. S.MidgleyC.WigfieldA.BuchananC. M.ReumanD.FlanaganC.IverD. M. (1993). Development during adolescence. The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.48.2.90
15.
FreemanN. R. (2019). Authoring action creative writing process: A companion guide.
16.
FuligniA. J. (2019). The need to contribute during adolescence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 331–343.
17.
GudeO. (2007). Principles of possibility: Considerations for a 21st-century art & culture curriculum. Art Education, 60(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/27696187
18.
HillS.VanceF. (2019). Changemakers! Practitioners advance equity and access in out-of-school time programs. Information Age Publishing.
19.
JonesJ. N.DeutschN. L. (2011). Relational strategies in after-school settings: How staff-youth relationships support positive development. Youth & Society, 43(4), 1381–1406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10386077
20.
KahneJ.WestheimerJ. (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(2), 289–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096506060471
21.
KirshnerB.GinwrightS. (2012). Youth organizing as a developmental context for African American and Latino adolescents. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 288–294.
22.
LernerJ. V.PhelpsE.FormanY. E.BowersE. P. (2009). Positive youth development. In LernerR.SteinbergL. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 524–558). John Wiley & Sons.
23.
LernerR. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among America’s youth. SAGE.
24.
MaltiT.NoamG. G. (2009). A developmental approach to the prevention of adolescent’s aggressive behavior and the promotion of resilience. International Journal of Developmental Science, 3(3), 235–246.
25.
McGeeM. (2019). Critical youth development: Living and learning and the intersections of life. In HillS.VanceF. (Eds.), Changemakers! Practitioners advance equity and access in out-of-school time programs (pp. 93–108). Information Age Publishing.
26.
MilnerH. R.IV. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
27.
MitraD. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development?Teachers College Record, 106, 651–688.
28.
MuhammadE. C. (2019). Exploring diverse student voices: A multiple case study of authoring action [Unpublished Dissertation]. Northcentral University.
29.
NoamG.TriggsB. (2017). Out-of-school time and youth development: Measuring social-emotional development to inform program practice. IJREE—International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 5(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.3224/ijree.v5i1.03
30.
OzerE. J. (2016). Youth-led participatory action research: Developmental and equity perspectives. In HornS. S.RuckM. D.LibenL. S. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 50, pp. 189–207). Academic Press.
31.
OzerE. J. (2017). Youth led participatory action research: Overview and potential for enhancing adolescent development. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12228
32.
OzerE. J.AbraczinskasM.DuarteC.MathurR.BallardP. J.GibbsL.. . .AfifiR. (2020). Youth participatory approaches and health equity: Conceptualization and integrative review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 66(3–4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12451
33.
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85.
34.
PierceK. M.AugerA.VandellD. L. (2013). Narrowing the achievement gap: Consistency and intensity of structured activities during elementary school (Vol. 8) [Paper presentation]. Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Seattle, WA, United States.
35.
RothJ. L.Brooks-GunnJ. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7(2), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0702_6
36.
RothJ. L.Brooks-GunnJ. (2016). Evaluating youth development programs: Progress and promise. Applied Developmental Science, 20(3), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1113879
37.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
38.
TerryG.HayfieldN.ClarkeV.BraunV. (2017). Thematic analysis. In WilligC.Stainton-RogersW. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 17–37). SAGE.
39.
VandellD. L.SimpkinsS. D.PierceK. M.BrownB. B.BoltD.ReisnerE. (2020). Afterschool programs, extracurricular activities, and unsupervised time: Are patterns of participation linked to children’s academic and social well-being?Applied Developmental Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1843460
WattsR. J.DiemerM. A.VoightA. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.310
42.
WrightR.JohnL.AlaggiaR.SheelJ. (2006). Community-based arts program for youth in low-income communities: A multi-method evaluation. Journal of Child Adolescent Social Work, 23, 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-006-0079-0
43.
YatesM.YounissJ. (Eds.). (1999). Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on community service and activism in youth. Cambridge University Press.
44.
YeagerD. S.DahlR. E.DweckC. S. (2018). Why interventions to influence adolescent behavior often fail but could succeed. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617722620
45.
ZarobeL.BungayH. (2017). The role of arts activities in developing resilience and mental wellbeing in children and young people a rapid review of the literature. Perspectives in Public Health, 137(6), 337–347.
46.
ZarrettN.LernerR. M. (2008). Ways to promote the positive development of children and youth. Child Trends, 11(1), 1–5.
47.
Zeller-BerkmanS. (2019). Preface to changemakers! Practitioners advance equity and access in out-of-school time programs. In HillS.VanceF. (Eds.), Changemakers! Practitioners advance equity and access in out-of-school time programs (pp. ix–xi). Information Age Publishing.
