Smart Girls Literature Review Winter 2014



SMART Girls Rebooted: A Research Based Program Revision Literature Review Introduction The landscape of out-of-school time (OST) program development has changed considerably since the first iteration of Boys & Girls Clubs of America's SMART Girls program was created. The initial version of SMART Girls addressed age-appropriate health and wellness issues for girls on the cusp of and in the midst of puberty using a prevention-based model, when reducing risk exposure was considered the top priority for youth programs (Lerner, 2005). The SMART Girls program was established in line with these early standards in the field of OST programming. In the late 1990s, however, the Positive Youth Development (PYD) movement gained traction as researchers and practitioners began to consider the “multilayered, ecological web of family, school and community in which a youth is embedded” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], n.d., p. 1). Conjointly, formal studies of gender-specific, or more recently, gender-responsive programs yielded promising results. Since that time, both gender-responsive and PYD programs have been shown to produce positive outcomes for youth.Beyond developments in research, the experience of girlhood has changed dramatically. The first edition of SMART Girls predated the global proliferation of mobile technology and the advent of social media, two major cultural shifts that influence the way girls interact with their communities and one another. Girls today are surrounded by media messages and the digital social stream, which affects their self-esteem, habits and relationships. Knowing this informed our approach to crafting sessions and activities relevant to modern girls’ lives. Durlak and Weissberg find that OST programs must be evidence-based in order to yield positive outcomes (2007, p. 19). Following a multi-year longitudinal study of PYD programs, Lerner, Lerner et al. conclude that “youth programs cannot remain static; they must expand and change in order to address the diverse and changing characteristics, needs and interests of adolescents” (2013, p. 41). Accordingly, this 2014 revision of the SMART Girls program is informed by research that supports PYD programming strategies and OST and gender-responsive programming best practices, and addresses the unique experience of the modern girl. This paper reviews the literature consulted in developing this edition of the SMART Girls program. First, we define PYD, and then show how SMART Girls meets the criteria of PYD programming. Then, we review OST best practices and highlight relevant examples from the program. Finally, we discuss gender-responsive programming best practices and their SMART Girls correlatives. A Brief History of Positive Youth Development At the turn of the 20th century, when psychology was gaining momentum as a field of study separate from other social and natural sciences, Americans were introduced to a distinct phase of life: adolescence (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak and Hawkins, 2004). Emerging child psychologist G. Stanley Hall is often credited with inaugurating the study of adolescence with the publication of his monumental 1904 work, Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Arnett and Cravens, 2006). Alongside the confluence of national attempts to both regulate child labor and implement mandatory public schooling, this newly identified life-stage snapped the American public to attention. According to Hall adolescence was fundamentally defined by sturm und drang, which translates to “storm and stress” (Arnett, 2006; Lerner, 2005). Youth programs proliferated. These programs were no panacea; largely intervention-based, they conceptualized youth as “problems to be managed” (OJJDP, n.d., p. 1) and focused primarily on crisis management. In the 1970s, new prevention-based programs that accounted for a child's situational circumstances emerged. Ideally, these programs intersected with youth before specific problems occurred – namely substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, poor social conduct, crime and academic failure – and addressed the influences of family, friends and community on youth behavior. In the 1980s, practitioners honed their prevention approach even further using empirical data from longitudinal studies that identified common predictors of delinquency (Catalano et al., 2004). In the late 1990s, however, things changed. Those in the field of youth psychology, policy-making and programming determined that healthy adulthood is not solely predicated on avoiding drugs, crime and promiscuity. Rather, it arises from the development of social, emotional and physical assets through positive engagement, which new research shows can help prevent misbehavior before it occurs (Bandy and Moore, 2009; Catalano et al., 2004; Lerner et al., 2013; Pittman, 1999). Consequently, practitioners synthesized the data: new programs examined problem behavior co-occurrences, as well as the commonalities among problem behavior indicators. These programs simultaneously integrated approaches that promote personal growth, leadership and skills-building among youth (cf. Catalano et al., 2004; Johnson, Bassin and Shaw, 1996; Lerner, 2005; Pittman, Irby, Tolman, Yohalem and Ferber, 2003; OJJDP, n.d.). This program model, which considers both risk and protective factors as well as each child's “unique constellation of risk and resilience factors” (Dion, Bradley, Gothro, Bardos, Lansing, Stagner and Dworsky, 2013, p. 13) has become known as Positive Youth Development. PYD programs lean heavily on creating safe spaces where youth can exercise their voices, build life skills, and nurture trusting, supportive relationships with peers and with staff and/or adult leaders (Dion et al., 2013; Lerner et al., 2013; Pittman et al., 2005). In the next section, we discuss the elements of PYD programming and the ways in which SMART Girls incorporates those elements. SMART Girls: A Positive Youth Development Program Catalano et al. (2004) posit that a successful PYD program exhibits one or more of the following characteristics (p. 102): Promotes bonding. Fosters resilience. Promotes emotional competence. Promotes cognitive competence. Promotes behavioral competence. Promotes moral competence. Fosters self-determination. Fosters spirituality. Fosters self-efficacy. Fosters clear and positive identity. Fosters belief in the future. Provides recognition for positive behavior. Provides opportunities for prosocial involvement. Fosters prosocial norms. In the prevention science field, these characteristics are recognized as operational criteria for evaluating PYD programs. Other similar sets of criteria exist, e.g. Pittman et al.'s spectrum of inputs, which range from providing safety and basic needs to offering “challenging experiences and opportunities to participate and contribute” as well as “high-quality instruction and training” (2003, p. 12); Lerner et al.'s (2013) “Five Cs” (Competence, Confidence, Connection, Character and Caring), which lead to the “Sixth C” (“Contribution to self, family, community and to the institutions of a civil society”) (p. 10); and Dion et al.'s conceptual framework for programs that target at-risk youth, which relies on engagement and stabilization through meeting immediate needs and fostering trusting relationships with staff, followed by empowering youth in their own service planning, and underpinned by rigorous and regular assessment (2013, pp. 11-22). We selected Catalano's criteria as starting points to refresh the SMART Girls program as they covered the widest and most program-development-specific ground. In particular, we created content that: Promotes bondingBonding is a central component of the SMART Girls program. Research has shown that children who form positive social connections in conjunction with skill-building can prevent antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood (Caplan et al. 1992; Dryfoos 1990, cited in Catalano et al., 2004). The program is conducted in small groups (15 or fewer participants) to promote stronger connections. Activities are designed to promote trust, respect, confidentiality and open communication from the first session through the final one. For example, during the initial session for each age group, girls identify the elements of respectful communication. They then practice respectful communication in the context of a group discussion (using the improv theater technique, “Yes, and…” to facilitate smooth discussion and generate ideas), and collaboratively create and sign a “SMART Girls Contract” that serves as their unique code of conduct and values statement. This series of exercises bonds girls from the start, over a set of shared values and a communal sense of ownership of “their program.” Fosters resilienceSMART Girls intervenes just before girls encounter the manifold and challenging social, emotional and physical changes that accompany puberty (Brooks-Gunn and Reiter, 1990, cited in Greene, Peters and Associates, 1998). Many of these changes, in particular sexual maturation and the unpredictable shifts in social capital and relationships, put girls at risk for unsavory or dangerous behaviors, which are often directed inward (Greene et al., 1998, pp. 6-7). SMART Girls addresses these changes discreetly, through varied activities, to increase girls' ability to handle change in healthy, non-destructive ways.For example, girls ages 8 to 10 participate in a timed drawing activity that requires them to change artistic course frequently, and without warning. This is followed by a discussion of how girls handled change in the context of the activity, which the facilitator extrapolates into a larger discussion about handling life changes. In this discussion, girls work together to determine coping strategies for types of changes suggested by their fellow group members. Similar sessions for older SMART Girls participants involve group problem-solving and role-play.Promotes social and emotional competenceMuch of the SMART Girls program focuses on building healthy relationships with friends, romantic partners and family members; and on successfully navigating interpersonal challenges such as bullying and peer pressure. For example, girls ages 11 to 13 and 14 to 18 participate in a Peer Pressure Grab-Bag activity, in which they pull age-appropriate peer pressure scenarios from a bag, and have to identify them as examples of negative or positive peer pressure. These activities are followed by group problem-solving exercises that focus on neutralizing negative peer pressure situations and nurturing positive ones. Fosters clear and positive identitySMART Girls opens with two to three sessions that address positive self-image and encourage girls to articulate who they are and what they value. For example, girls ages 8 to 10 and 11 to 13 play a card game in which they identify their own personal “superpowers,” and describe how they can solve real-life problems, which are prompted by the facilitator, using those superpowers. Girls ages 14 to 18 learn about “self-talk,” and practice it during a session activity. Fosters belief in the futureCatalano et al. (2004, paraphrasing Wyman et al., 1993) write that “positive future expectations predict better social and emotional adjustment in school and a stronger internal locus of control.” Phillips (2002) writes that girls are eager to think critically about their values and life choices, and how those affect their futures. In an effort to foster belief in the future, SMART Girls incorporates goal-setting sessions; provides opportunities for younger SMART Girls to bond with older participants; and incorporates a weekly worksheet or journal component that encourages critical introspection and invites girls to record commitments to future goals. In addition, SMART Girls provides recognition for positive behavior in the form of badges earned for sessions completed; provides opportunities for prosocial involvement with peers and program staff; and fosters prosocial norms through the aforementioned goal-setting sessions. In the next section, we discuss out-of-school time best practices, and how these principles apply to this iteration of the SMART Girls program. Out-of-School Time Best Practices Out-of-school time (OST) programs occupy a type of “third space” for many children – they are separate from home and school, and offer wholly distinct opportunities for learning and socialization. Nationwide, 10.2 million children, or 18 percent, participate in afterschool programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2014a, p. 7), which have been shown to improve self-esteem, attitudes toward school and social behaviors (Durlak and Weissberg, 2007). Though a majority of the literature is dedicated to demonstrating the academic gains of children enrolled in OST programs, a few studies of OST programs’ positive effects on social and emotional development have yielded promising results, e.g., the Harvard Family Research Project (2003, cited in Durlak and Weissberg, 2007); Moore, Bronte-Tinkew and Collins (2010, p. 1); and Catalano et al. (2004, p. 117). A leader in the field of OST program study, the Afterschool Alliance suggests that successful OST programs are designed with intention, and adhere to the four most promising practices as identified in the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) meta-analysis of 75 afterschool programs: sequenced, active, focused and explicit (2014b, p. 16-18). This updated edition of SMART Girls is built on the CASEL model, which is outlined in further detail below. Sequenced Sequenced programming breaks down and arranges activities such that youth can cultivate certain skills. SMART Girls is organized into 10 sessions, each of which is broken into four to five discrete activities that, in the aggregate, help girls develop skills, e.g., problem-solving, collaborative decision-making and healthy communication. ActiveActive programming engages participants through interactions and hands-on activities. SMART Girls incorporates active exercises, such as icebreakers and mini-games, hands-on projects and role-play, to immerse girls in the learning process. FocusedFocused programming spends the right amount of time on instruction and skills-building. One method of achieving this instructional golden mean is dosage, which regularly reinforces learnings throughout the program. Dosage is a key component of this iteration of SMART Girls. At the beginning of each session, the program facilitator leads a five-minute guided discussion that reviews the previous session’s core teachings.Explicit Explicit programming clearly communicates learning goals. In SMART Girls, these objectives are conveyed at the beginning of each session through a “knowledge activity,” which is moderated by the program facilitator. This activity asks girls to define and discuss session topic(s) prior to engaging in the remainder of the session activities, each of which reinforces session themes. This helps girls gain a clear understanding of what they are about to learn, and what is expected of them. Additional sources recommend the following, all of which are folded into the SMART Girls program: Offering varied activities. Experts agree that activity diversity is critical to successful programming. Moore et al. (2010) write that “youth learn better with a variety of activity options [and] learning strategies” (p. 1), and Bandy and Moore cite positive improvement of youth's social skills in 11 of 15 programs that implement varied instruction methods. Durlak and Weissberg (2007) assert that “young people learn best by doing” (p. 15). Thus, SMART Girls supports differentiated instruction across the program. Activities vary in a wide range from traditional and quiet, such as guided discussions and private journaling; to active games and icebreakers; to hands-on activities including collage, graphic design and cooking; to group projects and role-play exercises.Fostering supportive, caring relationships between program staff and youth has been shown to bolster youth’s academic performance and aspirations (Moore et al., 2010, p. 3; Afterschool Alliance, 2014b, p. 18). Sources also stress the importance of properly trained staff (Moore et al., 2010) who are prepared to manage issues that arise as a result of the program (Afterschool Alliance, 2014b, p. 19). SMART Girls asks its staff facilitators to set aside extra time to prepare for sessions, and encourages them to establish “office hours” outside their SMART Girls sessions. Some activities ask facilitators to participate alongside the girls (e.g., to write and share a personal “I Am” poem that defines who they are, or to create and share a collage that represents their family tree) to build trust and camaraderie. Creating opportunities for regular connection with positive peer role models. Greene et al. (1998) highlight the mutual benefits of peer mentoring for both older and younger girls (pp. 52-53), and Bandy and Moore note measurable impacts on social skills in programs that employ peer mentoring activities for tweens and teens (2011, p. 2). SMART Girls offers informal mentor opportunities that pair teens ages 14 to 18 with tweens ages 11 to 13, and tweens with girls ages 8 to 10 for both one-on-one and group activities. These opportunities are mutually beneficial in that they give older girls a chance to hone their leadership skills – something they desire, writes Phillips (2002, p. 77) – and younger girls an empathetic role model who can hold their confidences and help them navigate adolescence. Encouraging family engagement. Parent/guardian engagement in academic settings has been linked to improved academic performance and graduation rates (Afterschool Alliance, 2014b, p. 18). Similarly, it is a marker of the highest-performing OST programs, and “is associated with higher levels of youth participation and improved program quality” (Moore et. al, 2010, p. 2). SMART Girls program facilitators are empowered to involve parents/guardians in girls’ learning with a set of age-appropriate discussion questions that address what is covered in each session. These questions are provided as part of the program guide. The guide also suggests that program facilitators host a SMART Girls question-and-answer session for parents/guardians prior to the official program kickoff. In addition, facilitators are encouraged to reach out to girls’ mothers, grandmothers, aunts and other female relatives to assist with session activities when appropriate.In the following section, we discuss best practices for gender-responsive programming, and the ways in which SMART Girls employs those practices. Gender-Responsive Programming Best Practices The Afterschool Alliance (2014a) reports that girls edge out boys in OST program participation. One in five, or 20 percent of girls is enrolled in an afterschool program, compared to 17 percent of boys (p. 10) – one measurable indicator of the need for gender-responsive OST programming. Beyond this, psychologist Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (1982, cited in Lyman and Spinney, 2009) made the case for girls' unique developmental pathways. These findings have proved crucial to the development of girls-only programming, primarily in the juvenile justice sector, and secondarily in the field of OST, where targeted research remains scarce. The following sections outline the core elements of effective gender-responsive programming, and describes instances from the SMART Girls program in which these elements are applied. It is important to note that the key PYD principles and OST best practices previously discussed in this review are present in the following overarching principals. These three elements were used as touchstones during SMART Girls program development: fostering positive relationships; cultivating a safe, supportive, girl-positive environment; and taking a holistic approach to program design.Fostering positive relationshipsGilligan's findings that relationships are central to girls' development parallels OTS programming best practices (cited in Lyman and Spinney, 2009 and Greene et al., 1998; Benedict, 2005). Patton and Morgan (2002) found that girls excel in relationship-based programs that provide “time to talk and process issues as they arise” (cited in Lyman and Spinney, 2009, p. 17). Similarly, Bloom and Covington (1998) cite the work of Belknap, Dunn and Holsinger (1997): “Stressing the importance of relational issues for girls, Belknap et al. (1997) recommend providing 'the safety and comfort of same-gender environments,' offering learning experiences after trusting relationships have been established” (p. 8). Research shows that engendering positive peer relationships in group settings is particularly beneficial; Greene et al. (1998) assert that these relationships “create a positive sense of 'sisterhood' and affiliation with...peers” (p. 53). Moreover, effective curricula incorporates “cooperative design work to leverage a natural tendency for girls to form relationships and collaborate” (Build the Out-of-School Time Network, 2008). The Ms. Foundation agrees, but takes an inverse tack: “Girls' joy in being with each other is often tenuous...because the larger context of school and culture pits girls against each other” (2001, p. 14). To mitigate this, they recommend fostering mutual accountability among girls vis-à-vis conflict resolution and problem-solving, and program planning where applicable. Pittman et al. support this approach as well, citing development research that “increasingly emphasizes the importance of participation – choice and voice,” particularly for adolescents (2003, p. 6). Forming relationships with adults is vital to a girl's positive development, and has a marked effect on her in adulthood (Greene et al., 1998). Recommendations on cultivating healthy and empowering relationships with program staff as both confidantes and positive role models span the literature (Benedict, 2010; BOSTnet, 2008; Greene et al., 1998; Lyman and Spinney, 2009; Ms. Foundation, 2001; Phillips, 2002). What's more, Muno (2014) cautions against projection and pedantry, which can stunt girls' development: “unexamined use of adult power can keep girls from developing vitally important life skills” (p. 29). Considering the research, we took a relational based approach in developing the SMART Girls program. The opening session of the program addresses the bases of building healthy, trusting relationships within the SMART Girls group. Subsequent sessions ask girls to apply those skills to external relationships as well with friends, romantic partners and family. To foster personal and collective responsibility for the participants and the program, as recommended by the Ms. Foundation, the girls collectively draw up the aforementioned “SMART Girls Contract.” This instills a shared sense of ownership and accountability, which has been shown to increase girls' overall feelings of safety within a program (Ms. Foundation, 2001, p. 14). In addition, elements of games and interactivity in the program, via a badge-earning system, lets girls unlock achievements through group participation. This stimulates girls' innate desire to work together, and motivates continued participation in the program. It is worth noting that Benedict (2010) observes potential negative impacts of level systems, which can hinder incarcerated females' participation in programs. The SMART Girls system, however, is explicitly designed to be collaborative rather than competitive. For example, girls unlock achievements – which include field trips and special events – as a group, after all participants have earned badges for specified session groupings.Intentional and diligent care is taken to foster strong and sustained connection between SMART Girls leadership and participants. Cultivating a safe, supportive, girl-positive environment.Resoundingly, the literature agrees that effective gender-responsive OST programs are predicated on creating a safe and supportive environment that encompasses physical, social and emotional safety (BOSTnet, 2008). The following sections outline three critical components of a safe, supportive, girl-positive environment, and then provide coordinating examples from the SMART Girls program.Ensures emotional safety. Emotional safety is highly prized among girls. While they consider physical and emotional safety to be equally significant (Girl Scout Research Institute [GSRI], 2009a), girls also report that teasing, bullying and gossiping worry them more than threats to their physical safety (Schoenberg, Riggins and Salmond, 2003, p. 7). According to Schoenberg et al., 38 percent of girls surveyed reported feeling emotionally unsafe when with peers, or when speaking up in group settings, such as in class (2003, p. 13). Countering this emotional tenuousness through overt support and affirmation is critical to successful programming. The Ms. Foundation’s survey of girls who participate in gender-specific programs nationwide identifies “safe space” as a fundamental characteristic of effective girls’ programs. The “safe space” concept comprises programming that is actively girl-positive and prosocial (2001, p. 13). Girls reported feeling “safe in programs because of their relationships with other girls,” and cite the programs' implicit confidentiality as a crucial contributor to their sense of emotional safety (2001, p. 13). According to the survey, girls “highly value someone who will listen and hold their confidences” (Ms. Foundation, 2001, p. 15).Phillips (2002) concurs, writing that girls “crave a safe space to go and tell the truth about their lives.” Ideally a program will provide “a girl-friendly place to belong to, and an opportunity to develop relationships with girls they experience as different from themselves” (p. 9). This updated version of SMART Girls goes to great lengths to ensure emotional safety and nurture close relationships through sessions that allow girls to practice respectful and honest communication. It engages them in working together to accomplish common goals. Every session includes at least one group discussion or collaborative project that invites girls to share their personal histories, experiences, values and thoughts. The program materials stress respect and confidentiality at all times. These tenets are the focus of the inaugural SMART Girls session across all three age groups. For example, in the session on building healthy family relationships, girls collectively define “family,” and then create and share their own family trees. Similarly, sessions on bullying and peer pressure involve a role-playing activity, in which pairs or trios act out bullying or peer pressure scenarios, while the rest of the group works together to devise nonviolent solutions to the situation. These activities exercise girls’ social skills and help them build trusting relationships with one another. Builds self-esteem. Research shows that self-esteem suffers dramatically among the Caucasian adolescent population, and less so among African American and Hispanic populations, often due to the messages they receive from the media (GSRI, 2009b; Muno, 2014, p. 29). According to the Girl Scout Research Institute’s “Girls and Body Image” survey, 88 percent of girls say that the media places “a lot of pressure on teenage girls to be thin”; 60 percent “compare their bodies to fashion models”; and 48 percent “wish they were as skinny as the models in fashion magazines” (GSRI, 2009b [author's emphases]). A separate GSRI study shows that 49 percent of girls “worry 'a lot' about how they look,” and that their body image, regardless of reality, “affects their self-esteem...and their overall confidence” (2006, p. 15).Thus, this edition of SMART Girls includes activities designed to help girls cultivate strong self-esteem and strengthen their ability to interpret media messages. It incorporates sessions on practicing healthy eating habits and getting sufficient physical activity, which has been shown to improve girls' self-esteem (GSRI, 2006; GSRI, 2009a). It features a session for each age group that addresses media literacy and the way women are portrayed across various types of media. Many activities invite girls to identify and share the things they love about themselves. The program also includes activities that give girls opportunities to boost one another’s self-esteem. The Selfie Art Show creates a space where participants post positive messages on large-format selfies of one another. This show of mutual support is intended to strengthen relationships between participants and engender a feeling of emotional security program-wide.Respects past trauma. The lion's share of the research findings suggest that building trauma-informed programs based on girls' developmental pathways are the most likely to produce positive outcomes (Benedict, 2005, p. 2; Lyman and Spinney, 2009, p. 23). In the case of OST programming trauma-specific metrics are unavailable. This information can nonetheless be taken into account during program development. SMART Girls program facilitators are given latitude to shape program content based on the makeup of their SMART Girls group, and to take into account individual and collective history when presenting material. They are instructed to research program content prior to sessions in order to flag potential triggers for past trauma. The program materials alert facilitators to sensitive material and provide resources for addressing girls’ potential responses.Taking a holistic approach to program designGreene et al. (1998) write that “the most effective programs are rooted in the experience of girls and incorporate an understanding of adolescent female development” (p. 17). Benedict traces program efficacy to a holistic model as well (2010, p. 3), and Moore et al. cite research that indicates OST programs that “focus...on the whole child” are most successful (2010, p. 1 [authors' emphasis]). The Girl Scout Research Institute concludes that girls themselves value a comprehensive approach to programming. They prefer programs that “acknowledge what is important to them: their friendships, fitting in with peers, feeling good about themselves and feeling safe (emotionally and physically)” (2006, p. 29). Therefore, this edition of SMART Girls is built on a conceptual framework that doesn’t fragment girls' experiences. Rather, it treats their emotional, physical and social maturation as distinct but interconnected aspects of development, and responds to their complete experience across the course of the program. The program is divided into three umbrella units: Your Mind, Your Body and Your Community, which are designed to be administered in that order. Each of these units comprises three to four distinct sessions that address aspects of the overarching theme. Your Mind sessions cover self-esteem, body image, and mental and emotional health. Your Body sessions discuss physical health and wellness, including age-appropriate education concerning puberty and sexual health. Your Community sessions focus on building healthy relationships with friends, romantic interests, family and role models. As appropriate to the age groups, these sessions also cover social media-based relationships and digital etiquette. This framework directly supports the research, addressing the topics that matter most to girls, and that give them the tools to negotiate the emotional, physical and social peaks and valleys of adolescence. ConclusionThis summary of findings from the literature consulted in developing this edition of SMART Girls covers three major areas. The first encompasses the origins and growth of positive youth development programming, and how this iteration of SMART Girls is informed by the primary principles of PYD. The second discussion highlights out-of-school time best practices, supplemented by examples from the SMART Girls program. The third discusses gender-responsive programming best practices, with relevant corollaries from the SMART Girls program.Overall, the literature addresses many elements of successful PYD and OST programs. As noted, these elements combined create the three core principles of effective gender-responsive programming: Fostering positive relationships.Cultivating a safe, supportive, girl-positive environment.Taking a holistic approach to program design. Studies show that girls thrive on building and nurturing connections, and the research substantiates how girl-specific OST programs are most effective when they place a premium on fostering positive relationships, both between girls and adult program staff and/or leaders, and among girls themselves. Studies also indicate that cultivating a supportive, girl-affirming environment also contributes to a program's efficacy, as girls are deeply concerned with self-esteem and emotional safety. Program structure influences program success as well. Programs that address and are informed by all aspects of girls' development have been shown to yield positive outcomes.Program facilitators can implement the following core practices to enhance the efficacy of their SMART Girls program: Planning special events that help girls nurture friendships within the group. Facilitators can reward girls' efforts to communicate openly and respectfully by giving them opportunities to bond outside of SMART Girls session time. Facilitators are encouraged to ask girls what types of bonding activities they enjoy and then take necessary steps to plan and execute those activities. For example, during the program's pilot phase, many participants reported a desire to play video and board games together, and to give each other makeovers. Offering multiple ways for girls to connect with program staff, leaders and peer role models. It is recommended that program facilitators establish office hours outside SMART Girls session time so that girls can talk one-on-one with staff about their experiences both in and out of the program. It is also recommended that facilitators incorporate SMART Girls mentors into their sessions, as directed in the program guide. Facilitators are also encouraged to plan and execute extracurricular mentor activities, per the program guide. Suggested activities include a dinner prepared for the younger girls by the older ones; trading daily affirmations between pen-pal or text-pal pairs; an all-program slumber party; group community service; and a series of get-to-know-you games. Creating a safe, girl-affirming space. Beyond reinforcing respect, trust and confidentiality in each session, facilitators can empower girls to create a space that is welcoming, pleasant and girl-positive. For example, facilitators can ask girls to create girl-affirming posters and signs to decorate the SMART Girls meeting space.Encouraging girls to own their learning. Recognizing that girls' familial relationships and friendships outside the SMART Girls group are paramount, facilitators can suggest that girls share their SMART Girls learnings with friends and family. Facilitators can help girls draw connections between each program unit (Your Mind, Your Body, Your Community), to show them that their experiences aren't singular. Rather, they are interconnected and influence one another. Implementing the above strategies in conjunction with the SMART Girls program can help drive positive outcomes for program participants.References Acoca, L. (1999). Investing in girls: A 21st century strategy. Journal of the Department of Justice, 6(1), 3-13. Retrieved from Alliance. (2014a). America after 3PM: Afterschool programs in demand. Washington, DC: Afterschool Alliance. Retrieved from Afterschool Alliance. (2014b). Taking a deeper dive into afterschool: Positive outcomes and promising practices. Washington, DC: Afterschool Alliance. Retrieved from Arnett, J. J., and Cravens, H. (2006). “G. Stanley Hall’s Adolescence: A centennial appraisal (Introduction).” History of Psychology, 9, p. 165-171. Arnett, J. J. (2006). “G. Stanley Hall’s Adolescence: Brilliance and nonsense.” History of Psychology, 9, p. 186-197. Bandy, T., and Moore, K. A. (2009). Non-participation of children and adolescents in out-of-school time programs: Child, family and neighborhood factors. Pub. #2009-39. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from Bandy, T., and Moore, K. A. (2011). What works for promoting and enhancing positive social skills: Lessons from experimental evaluations of programs and interventions. Pub. #2011-07. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from Belknap, J.; Dunn, M.; and Holsinger, K. (1997). Moving toward juvenile justice and youth-serving systems that address the distinct experience of the adolescent female. Ohio: Gender Specific Youth Services Work Group Report.Belknap, J., and Holsinger, K. (1998). “An overview of delinquent girls.” In R. T. Zaplin (Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective interventions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.Benedict, A. (2010). Rethinking behavior management with female offenders: Using a Using a Gender Responsive Behavior Motivation Paradigm to Facilitate Safety and Resident Growth. Jupiter, FL: CORE Associates, LLC. Retrieved from , B. E., and Covington, S. S. (1998). Gender-specific programming for female offenders: What is it and why is it Important? La Jolla, CA: The Center for Gender and Justice. Retrieved from the Out-of-School Time Network. (2008). “Gender-responsive programming as a pathway to quality.” State of the Field, 3(2). Retrieved from , J., and Reiter, E. O. (1990). “The role of pubertal processes in the early adolescent transition.” S. S. Feldman and G. R. Elliott (Eds.). At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Caplan, M.; Weissberg, R. P.; Grober, J. S.; Sivo, P. J.; Grady, K.; and Jacoby, C. (1992). “Social competence promotion with inner-city and suburban young adolescents: Effects on social adjustment and alcohol use.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, p. 56-63. Catalano, R. F.; Berglund, M. L.; Ryan, J. A. M.; Lonczak, H. S.; and Hawkins, J. 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, 98-124. Dion, R.; Bradley, M. C.; Gothro, A.; Bardos, M.; Lansing, J.; Stagner, M.; and Dworsky, A. (2013). Advancing the self-sufficiency and well-being of at-risk youth: A conceptual framework. OPRE Report #2013-13, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press. Durlak, J. A., and Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.Gilligan, Carol (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Girl Scout Research Institute. (2009a).What girls say about emotional and social health. [PowerPoint slides]. New York: Girl Scouts of the USA. Retrieved from Scout Research Institute. (2009b). Girls and body Image: Key messages and findings. New York: Girl Scouts of the USA. Retrieved from Scout Research Institute. (2006).The new normal? What girls say about healthy living. [Executive Summary]. New York: Girl Scouts of the USA. Retrieved from , Peters and Associates. (1998). Guiding principles for promising female programming: An inventory of best practices. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.Harvard Family Research Project. (2003). A review of out-of-school time program quasi-experimental and experimental evaluation results. Retrieved from , S. M.; Moore, K. A.; Hair, E. C.; and Scarupa, H. J. (2002). Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from Johnson, Basin and Shaw (1996). Reconnecting youth and community: A youth development approach. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. White paper prepared for the Workshop on the Science of Adolescent Health and Development, National Research Council, Washington, DC. September 9, 2005. Retrieved from Lerner, R. M.; Lerner, J. V.; et al. (2013). The positive development of youth: Comprehensive findings from the 4-H study of positive youth development. Chevy Chase, MD: National 4-H Council. Lyman, L., and Spinney, E. (2009). Report on high risk girls and gender-specific programming. Roxbury, MA: The Girls' Initiative. Retrieved from Clearinghouse on Families and Youth. (2007). Putting positive youth development into practice: A resource guide. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from Miller, M. K.; Miller, L.; and Broadus, A. D. (2014). “Female juvenile offenders' perceptions of gender-specific programming.” In M. K. Miller, J. Chamberlain, T. Wingrove (Eds.), Psychology, Law and the Well-being of Children (pp. 83-102). New York: Oxford University Press. Moore, K. A.; Bronte-Tinkew, J.; and Collins, A. (2010). Practices to foster in out-of-school time programs. Pub. #2010-02. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from Ms. Foundation for Women. (2001). The new girls' movement: Implications for youth programs. New York: Author. Retrieved from Muno, A. (2014). “And girl justice for all: Blending girl-specific and youth development practices.” Afterschool Matters, Spring 2014, 28-35. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (n.d.). Positive youth development. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from Patton, P., and Morgan, M. (2002). How to implement Oregon’s guidelines to gender-responsive programming for girls. Portland, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission Juvenile Crime Prevention Program and the Oregon Commission on Children and Families.Phillips, L. M. (2002). Speak for yourself: What girls say about what girls need. Chicago, IL: Girl's Best Friend Foundation. Retrieved from , K. (1999). Youth today: The power of engagement. Forum for Youth Engagement. Retrieved from node/500 Pittman, K.; Irby, M.; Tolman, J.; Yohalem, N.; and Ferber, T. (2003). “Preventing problems, promoting development, encouraging engagement: Competing priorities or inseparable goals?” Based upon Pittman, K. and Irby, M. (1996). “Preventing problems or promoting development?” The Forum for Youth Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc. Retrieved from Schoenberg, J.; Riggins, T.; and Salmond, K. (2003). Feeling safe: What girls say. New York: Girl Scouts of the USA. Retrieved from , P. A.; Cowen, E. L.; Work, W. C.; and Kerley, J. H. (1993). “The role of children’s future expectations in self-esteem functioning and adjustment to life stress: A prospective study of urban at-risk children.” Development and Psychopathology, 5, 649-661. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download