Storage.googleapis.com



Considering the Youths’ Experiences of Critical Issues that Impact Positive Youth Development: A Phenomenological StudyT. Ryan Duckett & Joseph A. DakeUniversity of Toledo& Grant Fundamentals, LLCAuthor NoteT. Ryan Duckett, Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership, University of ToledoAnd Graduate Assistant for Grant Fundamentals, LLCCorrespondence regarding this article should be addressed to T. Ryan Duckett,Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership, University of Toledo,Toledo, OH 43606 Contact: timothy.duckett@utoledo.eduAbstractChildren from lower socioeconomic backgrounds struggle with acquiring access to the basics in a number of vital areas: sufficient food and nutrition for physical well-being, cultural and entertainment venues for personal growth, and consistent educational standards for cognitive and social development. Toledo, the county seat of Lucas County, is ranked as the metropolitan area with the largest increase in concentrated poverty in the nation (Kneebone, Nadeau, & Berube, 2010) by nearly doubling the number between 2000 and 2010. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand the most critical issues impacting positive youth development for Lucas County youths aged 12-18. At this stage in the research, critical issues impacting positive youth development will be generally defined as those social, behavioral, and other cultural activities and conditions that prevent youth from positively developing into well-adjusted adults. Participants were recruited from after-school and extracurricular programs in Lucas County for youth ages 12-18. To provide a richer account of the diverse youth population, multiple focus groups took place at both neutral, secure public spaces as well as the regular environments of the participants’ after-school programs. The themes that emerged from the data include youth experiencing struggles with sense of self-identity and the pressures that stem from social media, feelings of alienation from adults at school and in the community, and concerns about their prospects for the future. These findings led to actionable recommendations offered to the Youth Advocacy Alliance (YAA), a group that provides trainings and programming for youth workers in Lucas County.Keywords: at-risk youth, youth development, focus groups, informing programmingConsidering the Youths’ Experiences of Critical Issues that Impact Positive Youth Development: A Phenomenological StudyStatement of the ProblemResearch into the issues youth face regarding their development and integration into the larger community reveals that the social problems faced by youth are not adequately addressed or made a priority in civic policy (Taylor & McGlynn, 2009). Many youth, especially those identified as “at-risk” youth with mental health, poverty, or minority backgrounds, experience marginalization and are denied a voice in shaping their participation in the community (Hopper & Iwaskai, 2017). The experiences of these marginalized youth are marked by pervasive disparities that stymy the physical and mental health of those youth, as well as their educational achievement (Schwartz and Suyemoto, 2013). Additionally, studies reveal a significant correlation between the socioeconomic status and overall well-being of a child: the lower a child’s socioeconomic background, the more drastic the increase in emotional and behavioral problems (Flouri, Midouhas & Joshi, 2014). To compound matters even further, children of any age who are exposed to domestic violence and other domicile trauma experience instability, self-esteem issues, and other enduring psychic damage (OJJDP, 2011). Within the context of positive youth development, the critical issues that the youth face in a community have become phenomena of sustained research interest (Nitzberg, 2005; Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2013).Purpose of the StudyThis phenomenological study seeks to understand the central phenomenon of youths’ experiences of the most critical issues that they are facing and that are impacting their development. Toledo, the county seat of Lucas County, is ranked as the metropolitan area with the largest increase in concentrated poverty in the nation (Kneebone, Nadeau, & Berube, 2010) by nearly doubling the number between 2000 and 2010. Another study found that Toledo is moving toward an unsustainable future due to excessive increases in vacant and dilapidated houses, unemployment rates, and inhabitants living below the poverty level (Gonzalez-Mejia, Suidan, Cabezas, & Eason, 2014).Contributing to the foreboding landscape, the most recent data on domestic violence incidences (DVI) in Ohio (Ohio Attorney General, 2015), detailed in Table 1, reveals the severity of that problem in Toledo and provides additional evidence of the link between poverty and increased domestic violence (Moore, 2003).Table 1: Domestic violence incidences in OhioCounty NameMajor CityPopulationDVI ChargesDVI Charges per 1,000Lucas CountyToledo436,0003,2087.36Franklin CountyColumbus1,210,0004,7283.91Montgomery CountyDayton535,0001,9793.70Hamilton CountyCincinnati804,0002,1652.69Cuyahoga CountyCleveland1,260,0003,1982.54 Compounding the above mentioned issues, only 63.9% of high school students enrolled in Toledo Public Schools (TPS) graduated within four years, making Toledo the second-worst performer among the more than 600 public school districts in Ohio (McCray, 2016). By comparison, the Ohio Department of Education’s most recent report card ranked Ottawa Hills, an affluent village in Lucas County that is surrounded by Toledo, as the tenth best district in the state, compared to TPS’ ranking of 785 (Ohio Department of Education, 2015). These statistics present Lucas County as a complex and diverse community marked by considerable disparity in crime, poverty, and graduation rates among different neighborhoods and districts.The current study followed the capabilities approach described by Shinn (2015). This framework takes into consideration the opportunities and constraints afforded to individuals in their environment. Fundamental capabilities include an investigation into the extent to which individuals (youth in Lucas County, in the present study) can pursue development in several critical domains: living to the end of a natural life, access to adequate nutrition and shelter, freedom for meaningful acts of expression and identification, and having an authentic social basis of affiliation with self-selected groups (Shinn, 2015). These capabilities provide a theoretical model to compare the experiences of youth in the diverse communities across Lucas County.The results of this research provide several practical implications, including actionable recommendations for local agencies such as the Youth Advocacy Alliance (YAA) that provide training for youth service professionals as well as agencies like the Lucas County Youth Commission (LCYC) that implement programming aimed at positive youth development. The themes that result from the youths’ experiences of the critical issues they face will help inform policy and lead to meaningful systemic change aimed at community building and sustained cultural and capital investment (Nitzberg, 2005). Additionally, this research supplements a previous study conducted by the YAA that gathered the perspective of youth service professionals regarding the problems facing the youth. By adding the voice of the youth to the previous gathered perspectives of adults, triangulation (Creswell, 2013) will lead to a much richer understanding of the critical issues that youth face and thereby lead to better policy aimed at improving undesirable conditions.Research QuestionsTo achieve the purpose of this study, the following research questions were investigated:What are critical issues that the youth in Lucas County experience and that prevent them from pursuing development in the fundamental capabilities (as detailed by Shinn, 2015), based on their lived experiences?What are the qualitative commonalities and differences of how the youth experience these critical issues within the different communities of Lucas County?Limitations and delimitationsThis study was shaped by several conditions that influenced the interpretation of the data (Wiersma, 2000). The research was conducted over the duration of 6 weeks with the limited time divided between collecting, analyzing, and reporting the data. The data collection procedure of focus groups has the limitation of not all participants being equally articulate and perceptive (Creswell, 2013). Additionally, some participants may not have felt completely comfortable talking about issues that affect their lives. The short research period also resulted in a small sample size of two focus groups, with four participants in the first and eight in the second. The small sample size meant that there was no way of knowing if saturation, the point where new data does not contribute any new insights into the central phenomenon (Creswell, 2013), had been met. A few delimiting characteristics in the study impact the scope of the results (Wiersma, 2000). The focus group protocol only asked the participants about limited aspects of their experience, specifically the challenges and opportunities associated with the critical domains described in Shinn (2015). The study defines youth as being between 12 and 18 years and does not explore the critical issues faced by people outside of that age range. There were no other inclusion criteria other than being a youth aged 12 to 18 years and living in Lucas County.Research Methods and ProceduresQualitative Approach and RationaleThe design for this qualitative research implemented a phenomenological approach. Phenomenology aims to describe the manifold layers of the experience of objectivity as it emerges at the heart of subjectivity (Moran, 2000). Phenomenologists, attempt to think through the nature of the essential correlation between mind (subject) and world (object), rather than beginning with either as given. This research focused on understanding the lived experiences of Lucas County youth and how they have experienced problems and issues that prevent their positive development.The study employed a phenomenological research approach by conducting focus groups to understand how the participants experienced the central phenomena (problems facing the youth) (Creswell, 2013). This methodology also entailed a hermeneutic inductive thematic analysis as the data from the focus groups was transcribed and the text analyzed by identifying and coding themes and interpreting the structure and content of the themes (Sage publishing, n.d.). A pragmatic worldview informed this study because the study design remained problem-centered and real-world practice oriented (Creswell, 2013).Role of the ResearcherThe researcher of the present study has a disciplinary background in literature and the social sciences, with recent activities focused on creating and evaluating youth development programs. The researcher provided methodological experience and was responsible for conducting the focus groups, transcribing the focus groups, and conducting the thematic analyses. The researcher was aided by Dr. Joseph Dake, professor in Public Health at the University of Toledo, for assistance in facilitating the focus groups as well as feedback on the interview protocol, and insights into the analysis. Additional assistance was provided by David Kontur, Director of Lucas County Family and Children First Council, as providing the contacts to recruit participants for the study.Selection of Site and ParticipantsParticipants were recruited from the Teen PEP program (peers educating peers), a program sponsored by Ohio Health Department and Promedica Toledo Children’s Hospital and open to any youth aged 12-18. Additional participants were recruited form two other after-school programs offered for to teens in Lucas County: the Teen Opportunities Program, a program facilitated by the YWCA, and the PEACE Project of Northwest Ohio, run by the Sylvania School district.Purposeful sampling was employed in the present study to ensure that participants were tied directly to the objectives and purpose statement. This was an iterative process that required the researcher to rely on chain sampling with the directors of the above listed programs responsible for recommending and recruiting participants who could provide information and insight into the central phenomenon of the study (Given, 2008). Since the inclusion criteria was very broad (youth 12-18 years of age and living in Lucas County), program directors were asked to be mindful of selecting youth participants with a range of backgrounds and who reside in different districts of the community in order to better provide data that could answer research question two.Data Collection ProceduresTwo focus group sessions were conducted with two different groups of participants. Focus groups have the strength of eliciting information on a range of experiences and opinions in a brief time. Focus groups can also elicit agreement and disagreement, providing a range of feedback and stimulating group conversation (Mack, 2005). Best practices were followed by conducting the focus groups in safe, positive public sites (two meeting rooms at different branches of the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library). The focus group facilitator worked to create a comfortable and open space for the youth to share their experiences (Mack, 2005). The focus groups were semi-structured and mostly followed the protocol included in Appendix B. Interviews were approximately 60 minutes in length. Given the flexibility phenomenological research requires, the facilitator departed from the protocol in instances that allowed for more sustained feedback and relating of experiences from the youth (Creswell, 2013).For the act of data collection, quality was ensured by using proper audio recording equipment to capture the focus group conversations. The ethical integrity of data collection was maintained by explaining the purpose and confidentiality of the study (Mack, 2005). Integrity of results was maintained by having a facilitator as well as a note-taker who captured the qualitative reactions and expressions of the participants.Data Analysis ProceduresIntegrity of the data was maintained during the storage process by transferring the audio file to a password-secured database, deleting the file off the recording equipment and then coding participant names, removing them from any audio files and notes, and storing the list of participants on a separate database, with data saved for five years (Creswell, 2013). Both of the recorded focus groups were transcribed and proofread to ensure accuracy of transcription. These became the main texts for analysis, with due recourse to the findings and supplements added by the notes of the field note taker (Mack, 2005). A hermeneutical inductive thematic analysis was then undertaken to identify and code the themes that emerged from the youths’ responses (Sage publishing, n.d.). Each focus group was first coded individually for themes, then both were analyzed together to see if any common themes were being identified by the youth.Strategies for Validating FindingsOf the validity strategies available to qualitative research, three were prominently used in the current study to determine the accuracy of the findings from the standpoint of the researcher and the participants (Creswell, 2013):Triangulation was used to converge different sources of data and perspectives of the participants to better understand the central phenomenon. The present study conducted multiple focus groups with youth from across Lucas County in order to gather different experiences. Additional sources of data including the supplemental findings and clarifications afforded by the field notes.Rich, thick descriptions were used to describe the findings. The youths’ experiences were detailed in the findings section and have the additional thickness of incorporating a multitude of youths’ experiences.Peer debriefing was used by consulting several colleagues not associated with the project to review the process and findings and ask any illuminating questions. This process adds validity to the findings by including insights from beyond any potential bias of the researcher.Research EthicsThe most important ethical considerations for this phenomenological focus group were the age of the participants (youth aged 12-18) and the possible sensitive topics that could come up (sex, drugs, and other items) in the process of understanding what problems the youth are facing. Creswell (2007) notes the need to be sensitive to the needs of vulnerable populations, including children. In order to help overcome any potential ethical issues, several steps were taken: getting informed consent from the parents and assent from the participating youth; thoroughly explaining the purpose of the study in age appropriate language; reminding all involved that answers remain anonymous, and that the youth can participate or stop at any point with no negative consequences (Creswell, 2013).The three core principles detailed in the Belmont report were adhered to in the following ways (Mack, 2005):Respect for persons: autonomy was maintained through giving participants the option to participate to the full extent of their desire. The results of the research are intended to help improve the lives of the research subjects by informing policy and programming geared toward youth, so the participants were not being used simply to “achieve research objectives.”Beneficence: risks were minimized, privacy has been maintained. The benefits to the participants were not immediate except that they were endowed with a sense of cohesion and better understanding of their peers and the problems they face. Long term proposed benefits include strategies and solutions aimed at improving the problems they identified as having to face.Justice: the participants of the study can be assumed to have benefited from the research as they will have played part in defining the policy and agendas of youth service providers and professionals that directly affect the lives and social worlds of the youth.Respect for communities: The interests of the community were at the heart of this research; with well-adjusted youth who feel connected to and responsible for their community comes a balanced, productive, and positive environment for all.FindingsThe composition of the participants of the two focus groups met the inclusion criteria for the study (Lucas County residing youth between the ages of 12 and 18), but did have some differences. Focus group one (FG1) was smaller with four participants and was more homogenous in regards to gender with all of the participants identifying as female. Focus group two (FG2) was larger with eight participants and a heterogeneous mix of four males and four females. The analysis of the participants’ responses in the two focus groups resulted in a rich account of how those participants expressed their experience of conditions and issues that hindered their positive development and access to fundamental capabilities such as autonomy and freedoms to engage in valued social roles (Shinn, 2015). Note that pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of all participants. The findings are reported in a way that parallels the data analysis with a focus first on the voices and experiences that emerged in each group individually, then with a turn toward the extent and how the two groups “spoke” to the experiences of the other. Through this process, a deeper understanding of the central phenomenon of youth experiences of critical issues and conditions will emerge (Creswell, 2013).When first asked about the problems the youth are experiencing, FG1 identified several major issues including anxiety and stress, depression, body image issues, drinking, and conformity. As each participant responded, the field notes captured the fact that there were near unanimous assenting nods and nonverbal agreement for the issues mentioned. Within this first major cluster a range of conditions present themselves, from internalized social pressure and sense of expectation (body image issues, conformity) to multifaceted, complex individualized psychological states (depression, stress). While the participants from FG1 all agreed that drinking, cigarette smoking, and increasing amounts of marijuana smoking occurred at their schools, Catherine noted that she did not see many negative consequences of the behavior:I just know of people who do it. I don’t ever see it, well I guess now, I don’t ever see anything that’s bad or anything wrong that happens, you know what I mean? Other than the fact that they’re drinking…Like I never anything about like ‘Ugh, this person got busted’ or anything.All participants concurred that cigarettes and other forms of tobacco consumption have enjoyed a continual surge of popularity and that a majority of the “the kids in general” across the high school partake in some form. Sarah noted that this may be a perpetual condition since “it was a majority of the seniors that were doing it, so seeing as how in high school we always look up to the class before us, it’s probably going to come back.”This insight from Sarah pointed the way to a discussion about another one of the issues they identified immediately: conformity. Sarah offered this insight into the mental component of it, from her experience:I guess it’s kind of mental health. They just want to fit in very, very badly that they conform. We said before that they start doing it. There are always has to be a root to a problem and I think that would be where it all starts coming from. I mean like the majority are just trying to fit in. And if it’s a conscious or subconscious thing it’s still going to be there. So I think that’s where it all comes from is the need to fit in and be a part of a group.The other participants agreed that “delusions” and “insecurities” feed these needs. Catherine noted that without a good support system “or that one friend that you can trust,” it can cause you to “be unsure of yourself and then that goes with the trying to fit in part.” This theme of self-identity and autonomy and susceptibility to peer influence, especially regarding less desirable activities such as substance use, has continually been identified as a significant problem (Allen, Szwedo, Schad, & Marston, 2012; Rees & Wallace, 2014).The next major theme that emerged from FG1 was a constellation of problems surrounding domestic violence. Anya notes that while it has gotten “less bad, it is still a very prominent thing at my school.” Many of the students view violence in relationships as a joke and not that serious, according to Anya. Megan noted instead of physical stuff it was mostly “mental mind games” that occurred in her experience and that the mental abuse was not any less bad and is still “really important.” The field notes revealed that Sarah was nodding in agreement throughout this discussion, providing deeper evidence for the significance of this constellation of issues in her experience. This theme was revisited throughout the conversation especially when topics of body image and the negative use of social media were discussed. Catherine noted how girls surrounding themselves with social media can lead to negative impact on body image. Anya affirmed that students can use social media “inappropriately” in order to create “a different life and image,” without any concern for the consequences.As the participants in FG1 discussed the significance of problems related to divorced parents, a larger conversation took place about the difficulty of authentic interactions with parents and adults in general. Catherine noted that:Some of my friends they don’t have, like they can’t go home and talk to their mom or their dad. And they're just like, they think that they’re crazy and overreacting. It’s just sad that they don’t have that like support. They don’t know where else to get it. I don’t know where else they would go.Anya noted that even in the cases where you have a trusted adult to talk to about these issues, these adults “still don’t get it in the same respect” because they are “decades” older and cannot relate common experiences. There are limited adults available for youth to talk with about these issues outside of parents. All participants noted that there are a few teachers who form the exception to the norm and youth feel comfortable approaching these teachers because the youth can see the teachers’ “dedication,” “openness,” and “honesty.”The issues the second focus group (FG2) identified at the beginning of the session were graver than those offered by FG1. After being asked to “think about the big picture issues teenagers are facing,” students listed “poverty and diet,” “motivation to get through school,” “pregnancies,” and “gangs.” While it may be noted that the FG1 participants mostly attended suburban Lucas County public high schools and the FG2 participants mostly attended inner-city Toledo Public Schools, the experiences cannot be extrapolated too widely, in part because of the limited number of experiences this research design could incorporate. Taken as autonomous groups though, FG2 tended more toward the corporal capabilities designated by Shinn (2015) that revolve around bodily integrity, whereas FG1 expressed more initial concern with the “affiliation capabilities, living with and toward others.” To move further up the model and away from immediate physical concerns and issues toward more enduring, systemic issues provides evidence for higher quality of life (Shinn, 2015). On the surface, this suggests that the two groups experience different levels of problems impacting their development. Although further analysis will reveal that the core causes at the root of the problems are common among both groups.Another difference to emerge between the focus groups was that FG2 made more references to “in Toledo we don’t do [activity x], that’s more suburbs,” where in one instance it was David claiming that suburban students drink, Toledo students smoke. In another instance, Amanda claimed Toledo fights more than the suburbs. FG2 more readily identified as a community, albeit in continual reference and in comparison to other groups. FG1 made no general references to any community larger than the culture at their respective high schools, yet FG2 was often willing to engage in broad comparisons. Due to the group and flowing nature of focus groups, this theme was not discussed directly but would be a place for follow up in future research.The threat of bodily harm emerged much more pervasively during FG2, which consisted of both male and female participants. Whereas FG1—an all-female focus group—briefly discussed the physical aspect of domestic violence, though not as frequent of an experience as the mental aspect, FG2 sustained a lengthy discussion of the “fighting that always happens,” with Tyler going so far as to claim that:April is fighting time. When it gets good out, you just get to it. Nobody wants to fight in the snow. And it’s about pride. Like if someone just does some dumb stuff I can let it go but not always.Reference to the field notes for this focus group revealed that not everyone was in agreement with this type of experience. Although four or five participants actively piggy-backed on each other’s stories, two of the male participants made non-verbal head shakes of disagreements and face scrunches of incredulity. A striking similarity that emerged from FG2 to FG1 was the feeling of disconnect with the majority of the adults. Tom noted that teachers often don’t take the time to “know where a student is coming from,” prompting Brittany to affirm that it “feels like we don’t have role models a lot of the times.” Several others did suggest that there are some good teachers, but as with FG1, they were not common. According to several students in near unison, adults need to do more to “listen” and “understand” the youth. It should be noted that two of the first items FG1 noted: body image issues and mental and physical abuse in relationships, were not identified at all as being issues experienced in FG2. The only mention of romantic relationships made in FG2 was when Ben, in response to a question about advice participants would have for middle school-aged youth, suggested that “they shouldn’t date freshman year” and everyone vocally agreed, with Robin noting that freshman year “was the most important time to get everything good.” It might be that the homogeneity of the first group (all females) allowed different experiences to emerge—even at the forefront of their experience—in part due to how Sarah from FG1 notes that “Body image issues [are] very big, especially for girls” and that consensus was met in the head nods and comments of the FG1 participants regarding the extent of physical and mental abuse in their experiences.The two focus groups found most commonality in their experiences when asked about what they as youth felt they needed. Amanda, from FG2, expressed a need for “More support for kids. And not just guidance, but being there.” Megan, from FG1, noted that “Support from adults feels conditional” which leads youth who go to adults feel like “you’re in trouble.” The need for supportive relationships and opportunities to belong were the capabilities, as defined by Shinn (2015) that most consistently manifested across both focus groups.ConclusionsThis phenomenological study used focus groups to explore the Lucas County youths’ experiences with the issues that hinder their positive development. A hermeneutic thematic analysis was conducted on the data, with triangulation provided by field notes and multiple perspectives (Creswell, 2013). Both groups contributed and helped to fulfill the first research question, pertaining to the issues and experiences of the youth that hinder their fundamental capacities (Shinn, 2015). There was no conclusive evidence to suggest that male and female youth experience significantly different problems, although more data is required before making any definitive assessment. While some themes emerged that suggest that youth experience different issues depending on their district of residence in Lucas County—the crux of the second research question—a deeper consideration of the data suggested that both focus groups most consistently expressed a need for the underlying capabilities of supportive relationships, especially with adults, and opportunities to belong. Several conclusions can be made based upon the findings of this research:While specific issues may manifest more frequently for youth in one part of a community as compared to another, the underlying needs to be met are often similar in structure and scope.Youth express a complex position of both needing more autonomy and trust from adults, while simultaneously still needing the guidance and “unconditional support” of those adult figures.The youth experiences captured in the focus groups point to a sample that desires dialogue and more positive opportunities for personal growth.In general, participants can be categorized as remaining cautiously optimistic about the prospects for youth in Lucas County. While one FG2 participant expressed an urgent desire to “get out of Toledo,” the majority of participants verbally and non-verbally agreed with Ben’s retort of “I don’t know, man, I like Toledo.”Future research can work toward achieving saturation and compiling a more comprehensive list of issues youth deal with in their experiences throughout Lucas County. This snapshot provides a starting point to continue the work of uniting service providers, youth-work professionals, and the long neglected voices of the youths themselves, in the common goal of improving the experiences and opportunities for the youth of Lucas County to expand their fundamental and extended capabilities in pursuit of evermore meaningful lives.ReferencesAllen, J. P., Chango, J., Szwedo, D., Schad, M., & Marston, E. (2012). Predictors of susceptibility to peer influence regarding substance use in adolescence.?Child Development,?83(1), 337-350.Buckey, Brian (2015, August 20). Ottawa Hills ranked top Ohio high school. The Toledo Blade.Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods. Los Angeles: Sage.Erbstein, N. (2013). Engaging underrepresented youth populations in community youth development: Tapping social capital as a critical resource.?New Directions For Youth Development,?2013(138), 109-124.Flouri, E. E., Midouhas, E., & Joshi, H. (2014). Family Poverty and Trajectories of Children's Emotional and Behavioural Problems: The Moderating Roles of Self-Regulation and Verbal Cognitive Ability.?Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,?42(6), 1043-1056.Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008).?The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications.Gonzalez-Mejia, A. M., Suidan, M. T., Cabezas, H., & Eason, T. N. (2014). Social and economic sustainability of urban systems: comparative analysis of metropolitan statistical areas in Ohio, USA.?Sustainability Science,?9(2), 217-228.Hopper, T. D., & Yoshitaka, I. (2017). Engagement of "At-Risk" Youth Through Meaningful Leisure.?Journal Of Park & Recreation Administration,?35(1), 20-33.Kneebone, E., Nadeau, C., and Berube, A. (2010). The re-emergence of concentrated poverty: Metropolitan trends in the 2000s. Brookings Institution. Accessed online at: , Vanessa. (2016, January 31). Seeing big problem with dropouts, Toledo makes it personal. The Toledo Blade.Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data collector’s field guide. Family Health International, USAID.Moore, S. D. (2003). Understanding the connection between domestic violence, crime, and poverty: How welfare reform may keep battered women from leaving abusive relationships. Texas Journal Of Women & The Law,?12(2), 451-484.Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. London: Routledge.Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Children Exposed to Violence: Tips for Domestic Violence and Homeless Shelters. (2011).?Children Exposed to Violence: Tips for Domestic Violence and Homeless Shelters.Ohio Attorney General (2015). 2014 Domestic Violence Incidents by County and Agency. Retrieved from Department of Education (2015). Performance index score rankings. Retrieved from , J. (2005). The meshing of youth development and community building.?New Directions For Youth Development,?2005(106), 7-16.Rees, C., & Wallace, D. (2014). The myth of conformity: Adolescents and abstention from unhealthy drinking behaviors.?Social Science & Medicine,?108,?34-45.Sage Publishing (n.d.) Qualitative research.Schwartz, S., & Suyemoto, K. (2013). Creating change from the inside: Youth development within a youth community organizing program.?Journal Of Community Psychology,?41(3), 341-358.Shinn, M. (2015). Community Psychology and the Capabilities Approach.?American Journal Of Community Psychology,?55(3/4), 243-252Taylor Jr., H. L., & McGlynn, L. G. (2009). The connection: Schooling, youth development, and community building—The Futures Academy case.?New Directions For Youth Development,?2009(122), 19-40.Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Boston, MA. Allyn and Bacon.Zeldin, S., Christens, B., & Powers, J. (2013). The Psychology and Practice of Youth-Adult Partnership: Bridging Generations for Youth Development and Community Change.?American Journal Of Community Psychology,?51(3/4), 385-397.?Appendix A: Parental Informed Consent and Participant Informed AssentADULT RESEARCH SUBJECT - INFORMED CONSENT FORMAND PARENTAL PERMISSION FORMConsidering the Youths’ Experiences of Critical Issues that Impact Positive Youth Development: A Phenomenological StudyPrincipal Investigator: T. Ryan Duckett, student researcher, 419-490-6832 Purpose: Your child is invited to participate in the research project entitled, Considering the Youths’ Experiences of Critical Issues that Impact Positive Youth Development: A Phenomenological Study, which is being conducted at the University of Toledo under the direction of Ryan Duckett. The purpose of this study is to explore Lucas County youths’ (ages 12-18) experiences of the most critical issues that they are facing and that are impacting youth development.Description of Procedures: This research study will take place at the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio and should take 45 minutes during one session. Your child will be part of a group of youth who participate in the Teen PEP program. They will be asked questions about their experience with the critical issues they are facing. Permission to record: Will you permit the researcher to audio record during this research procedure?YES NO Initial HereInitial HereAfter you have completed your participation, the research team will debrief you about the data, theory and research area under study and answer any questions you may have about the research.Potential Risks: There are minimal risks to participation in this study, including answering some questions that might cause your child to feel upset or anxious. If so, they may stop at any time.Potential Benefits: The only direct benefit to your child if they participate in this research may be that you will learn about how focus groups are conducted and may learn more about what their peers experiences and perceive to be the biggest issues they are facing. Others may benefit by learning about the results of this research. There will be no compensation provided.Confidentiality: The researchers will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing that your child provided this information, or what that information is. The consent forms with signatures will be kept separate from responses, which will not include names and which will be presented to others only when combined with other responses. Although we will make every effort to protect your confidentiality, there is a low risk that this might be breached.Voluntary Participation: Your refusal to allow your child to participate in this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled and will not affect your child’s relationship with Teen PEP. In addition, your child may discontinue participation at any time without any penalty or loss of benefits. Contact Information: Before you decide to allow your child to take part in this study, you may ask any questions that you might have. If you have any questions at any time before, during or after your participation you should contact a member of the research team: Ryan Duckett, 419-490-6832.If you have questions beyond those answered by the research team or your rights as a research subject or research-related injuries, the Chairperson of the SBE Institutional Review Board may be contacted through the Office of Research on the main campus at (419) 530-2844. Before you sign this form, please ask any questions on any aspect of this study that is unclear to you. You may take as much time as necessary to think it over. SIGNATURE SECTION – Please read carefullyYou are making a decision whether or not to allow your child to participate in this research study. Your signature indicates that you have read the information provided above, you have had all your questions answered, and you have decided to allow your child to take part in this research. The date you sign this document to enroll in this study, that is, today's date must fall between the dates indicated at the bottom of the page. Name of Subject (please print)SignatureDateName of Person Obtaining ConsentSignatureDateThis Adult Research Informed Consent document has been reviewed and approved by the University of Toledo Social, Behavioral and Educational IRB for the period of time specified in the box below.Approved Number of Subjects: CHILD RESEARCH SUBJECT ASSENT FORMConsidering the Youths’ Experiences of Critical Issues that Impact Positive Youth Development: A Phenomenological StudyPrincipal Investigator: T. Ryan Duckett, student researcher, 419-490-6832 You are being asked to be in a study to help understand about your experiences and any issues you face as a youth in this community.You should ask any questions you have before making up your mind. You can think about it and discuss it with your family or friends before you decide.It is okay to say "No" if you don't want to be in the study. If you say "Yes" you can change your mind and then quit the study at any time without getting in trouble. We are doing a research study about what the youth experience as the biggest issues they are facing. A research study is a way to learn more about people and their experiences. If you decide that you want to be part of this study, you will be asked to answer questions with a group of people your age.Everything you say will be confidential. This means that only people working on this project will know what you say.You might feel uncomfortable answering some of the questions we ask you about the problems you feel you are facing. If you do not want to answer a question, you do not have to, but we would like you to try your best. You may also stop at any time. No one will be upset with you.Not everyone who takes part in this study will benefit. A benefit means that something good happens to you. We think one benefit might be that you learn more about what your peers think are the biggest problems they are facing. We also think we might learn things from you that will help us figure out how to best address and solve the problems you are facing. There will be no compensation.When we are finished with this study we will write a report about what was learned. This report will not include your name or say that you were in the study.If you have any questions about the study, you can ask them at any time. You can also call Ryan Duckett at 419-490-6832 if you have a question later.If you decide to be in this study, please print and sign your name below.I, ____________________________, want to be in this research study? (Print your name here)Sign your Name: ___________________________ Date: ____________________Appendix B: Focus Group ProtocolDate:Time:Location:Participants:Moderator:Field Note taker:Interview Instructions:1) Introduce Study:Thank you for volunteering today to be part of our focus group. This group is being brought together to share your insights and experience as a youth in Lucas County. This project focuses on obtaining a better understanding of the problems facing the Lucas County youth, with a specific interest in how the youth experience the problems and their ideas for potential solutions. We are not looking for personal information about yourself but rather your perceptions, experiences, and insights regarding the most important issues that youth are facing today.2) Basic Assent:For your information, only the researcher will have access to the recordings created today. In addition, you must sign a form devised to meet our human subject requirements. Essentially, this document states that: (1) all information will be held confidential and all identifiers will be removed from the final project, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) there will be minimal risks to participation in this study.The purpose of this study is to explore the critical problems the youth in Lucas County face. The goal is to gain a better understanding of how these problems impact youth and their development.This interview is designed to last no longer than one hour. Please sign the release form. Thank you for your agreeing to participate.Any questions before we begin?3) Begin audio recording.Introductory Questions:Now that school is done, what fun plans does everyone have for the summer?[Transition – “Well it sounds like a lot of exciting plans. I’d like to know take a few moments to get your input on some other areas of your lives…”]Main Questions: What are the biggest issues that teens are facing?[Follow up with certain topics that emerge or with topics that aren’t mentioned that previous research suggest are problems; e.g. “I didn’t hear anything about x, is this a problem?]How do these problems impact you? How do the problems impact others your age? [Follow up about what they perceive as short-term and long-term consequences]Do you think adults in your life are aware of these problems?How do they help with these problems?What could they do to help these problems?Who are some of the adults who do and can have a big impact?What are the most exciting opportunities/activities for you? What do you most look forward to doing before you graduate high school? What about after you graduate high school? Is there anything else that would be good for us to know about the lives of youth and what schools and community agencies should know in order to help them provide better services to youth? ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download