Taking the youth perspective: Assessment of program characteristics that promote positive development in homeless and at-risk youth

Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d yo u t h

Taking the youth perspective: Assessment of program characteristics that promote positive development in homeless and at-risk youth Hillary J. Heinze a,⁎, Debra M. Hernandez Jozefowicz b,1, Paul A. Toro c,2 a b c

Department of Psychology, 411 Murchie Science Building, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI, 48502, USA School of Social Work, 401 Sunset Avenue, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada ON N9B 3P4 Department of Psychology, 5057 Woodward Avenue, 7th Floor, Suite 7908, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 February 2010 Received in revised form 28 May 2010 Accepted 1 June 2010 Available online 4 June 2010 Keywords: Youth homelessness Homeless youth services Service delivery Positive youth development

a b s t r a c t This study extends research on contextual characteristics associated with positive outcomes within traditional youth settings to examine program characteristics, resources and positive development opportunities that exist within programs for homeless youth and youth at risk for homelessness. One hundred and thirty-three youth (42 boys and young men; 91 girls and young women) from six community agencies completed questionnaires created to assess youth ratings of program dimensions associated with positive development. Relationships were examined among dimension ratings, client characteristics and overall satisfaction. Regression analyses revealed significant main effects for participant age, appropriate structure, empowerment, and positive social norms, and two age by dimension interactions. Older youth who were more satisfied with agency programming produced higher ratings for agency structure, while for younger youth, satisfaction was positively associated with ratings for agency safety. Implications for service delivery and policy are discussed. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Correlates of youth homelessness

Each night, thousands of youth are without fixed or adequate housing. National estimates indicate 1.6 to 1.7 million adolescents, approximately 7% of all youth, experience at least one night of homelessness each year (Hammer, Finkelhor, & Sedlak, 2002). Several theories offer explanation as to why youth become homeless, remain homeless, and experience repeated episodes of homelessness (Toro, Dworsky, & Fowler, 2007). Though proposed risks and causal pathways are varied and multifaceted, findings across studies indicate breakdown within contextual support systems that contain these youth. Specifically, youth homelessness has been consistently linked to conflict and disengagement within and from traditional settings, such as the home, school and other youth serving systems that provide strength building experiences and resources associated with development of positive personal and social assets in normative youth populations (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Toro et al., 2007).

Results of several studies indicate that youth with home relationships characterized by abuse, neglect, and conflict are at increased risk for homelessness. Youth who have been neglected or abused are more likely to run away, run away more often, and run away at an earlier age than youth who have not experienced abuse or neglect (Kim, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Huang, 2009; Whitbeck & Simons, 1990; Yoder, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2001). Both homeless youth and parents of homeless youth report lower levels of monitoring, warmth and supportiveness and higher levels of rejection, conflict, and family violence relative to housed samples (Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Ackley, 1997; Wolfe, Toro, & McCaskill, 1999). Risks associated with maladaptive relationships and experiences in the home may be intensified by estrangement from schools, community agencies, and other settings where youth are typically found. Within samples of homeless youth, more engagement within these settings, as measured by school attendance, days spent employed and medical contacts, is associated with fewer episodes and time spent homeless (Slesnick et al., 2008a). Alternately, disengagement factors, such as poor grades, school suspension and expulsions, are associated with greater likelihood of running away and more frequent episodes of homelessness (Thompson & Pollio, 2006; Tyler & Bersani, 2008). Strained or destructive relationships in the home, compounded by difficulty within and disengagement from traditional youth settings leave youth unsupported, left to navigate unpredictable and challenging lifestyles on their own. Coping with these challenges without positive supports

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 810 762 3424; fax: +1 810 762 3426. E-mail addresses: hheinze@umflint.edu (H.J. Heinze), [email protected] (D.M.H. Jozefowicz), [email protected] (P.A. Toro). 1 Tel.: +1 519 253 3000; fax: +1 313 577 8770. 2 Tel.: +1 313 577 2800. 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.06.004

1366

H.J. Heinze et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

or resources can amplify risk for continued harmful behavior and victimization, such as gang activity, substance abuse, crime, and risky sexual behavior (Chen, Thrane, Whitbeck, & Johnson, 2006; Halcón & Lifson 2004; Jozefowicz-Simbeni, 2003; McCaskill, Toro, & Wolfe, 1998; Whitbeck, Johnson, Hoyt, & Cauce, 2004). 1.2. Positive development opportunities within traditional youth settings Disengagement and conflict within traditional youth settings not only increases risk for continued harmful outcomes, it additionally decreases exposure to interpersonal supports and enrichment opportunities within traditional settings that enhance development of personal strengths and resources, such as self-esteem and social competency (Lerner et al., 2005). Enhanced youth strengths and resources facilitate youth-directed environmental changes, such as involvement in school and community activities, which may further promote positive development (Lerner et al., 2005). Youth settings and programs are therefore essential agents in providing conditions that optimally support this bidirectional growth process (Catalano et al., 2002; Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Accordingly, youth who are engaged in enriching youth serving contexts demonstrate more personal characteristics associated with healthy development, such as initiative, positive identity, helping others, valuing diversity, and educational and occupational success (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Gardner, Roth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008; Grossman et al., 2002; Larson, 2000; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006; Scales, Benson, & Mannes, 2006). To examine how youth-centered programming contributes to positive outcomes, Eccles and Gootman (2002) analyzed hundreds of studies to identify a set of core dimensions of successful programs that reduce negative behavior and promote positive behavior, including physical and psychological safety; clear and consistent structure; supportive relationships; opportunities to belong; opportunities for efficacy and mattering; opportunities for skill building; positive social norms; and integration of family, school, and community efforts. Very few studies have examined contextual characteristics associated with positive development in programs specifically for marginalized youth populations. Two notable exceptions involving youth in alternative high school and foster care settings produced consistent results; youth in these settings who demonstrated enhanced social and academic competencies and positive shifts in identity were also more likely to have staff–youth relationships characterized by mutual trust, communication, and respect and opportunities for identity development and responsibility taking (Green & Ellis, 2007; Kortsch, Kurtines, & Montgomery, 2008; Lewis Arango, Kurtines, Montgomery, & Ritchie, 2008). These findings indicate that contextual resources and experiences that support positive youth development within agencies and services for at-risk youth appear to be as important, if not more important, for at-risk youth as they are for youth in general. 1.3. Theoretical application: Assessment of positive development opportunities within services for homeless youth In sum, research suggests that homeless youth experience conflict and disengagement within relationships and settings that characteristically provide positive supports and strength building experiences associated with healthy outcomes. Given that homeless youth are often estranged from or have had fewer involvements within traditional youth serving programs and settings, it is important to understand interpersonal supports and strength building opportunities embedded within those settings more likely to engage these youth. Researchers have advocated for identifying and fostering strengths in homeless youth populations (Bender, Thompson, McManus, Lantry, & Flynn, 2007; Kidd & Davidson, 2007); however, contextual resources, supports and experiences that promote positive developmental processes and outcomes in traditional youth settings

have not been defined or evaluated within services specifically targeted for homeless youth or youth at risk for homelessness. Studies of youth outcomes following emergency shelter utilization have demonstrated some short term positive impacts, however, long term benefits have not been demonstrated (Slesnick, Dashora, Letcher, Erdem, & Serovich, 2009). Understanding and enhancing those experiences that build community connections and strength development may provide a means to facilitate long term change and transition out of homelessness. This study extends research on contextual characteristics within traditional youth settings to examine program supports, resources and positive development opportunities that exist within programs for homeless youth and youth at risk for homelessness. Using the framework proposed by Eccles and Gootman (2002), youth assessments of core program dimensions associated with positive development were created to examine youth experience within six community-based agencies serving youth who are homeless or at risk for homelessness. Additionally, relationships were examined among program dimensions, participant age, and overall program satisfaction. As opposed to previous work in which presence of program dimensions was inferred from study and program descriptions by the researchers (Eccles & Gootman, 2002), we simultaneously examined dimensions using assessment by youth engaged in programming. Homelessness researchers have advocated for assessments that consider preferences and values of consumers, as understanding factors associated with client satisfaction can shed light on quality of experience within agencies, factors that facilitate or deter utilization and engagement within services (Haber & Toro, 2004; Hoffman & Coffey, 2008).

2. Method 2.1. Participants 2.1.1. Agency characteristics Six agencies providing services to homeless youth and youth at risk for homelessness in a large midwestern metropolitan area were included in the current study. In a study of area programs serving homeless youth (Israel & Toro, 2003), the agencies were identified by community providers, city workers, and other key informants as doing “especially good work in servicing the homeless” and/or were rated positively in terms of satisfaction of clients, relative to other area services. Informal conversations with agency staff and administrators indicated that staff at some agencies receive specialized training in youth education and/or development (e.g., HighScope), though this was not formally assessed or a requirement for participation in the current study. Agencies varied in terms of setting (suburban, urban), services offered (emergency shelter services, individual and/or family counseling, transitional housing, prevention and outreach), program duration, size, and target age group.

2.1.2. Youth characteristics One hundred and thirty-three youth receiving services within one of the six agencies were included in the current study. Demographic information is presented in Table 1. The majority of youth were currently homeless (80%), either residing in emergency shelters or transitional or assisted housing. Twenty-seven youth were not currently homeless, though were at risk for homlessness due to poverty, substance abuse or criminal justice history, and/or past experiences of homelessness. The decision was made to include these participants in the current study, as they were accessing agency services (prevention, outreach activities) and could therefore provide important information in regards to contextual resources and experiences.

H.J. Heinze et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

1367

2.2. Measures

Table 1 Demographic information (N = 133). Demographic

n

%

Gender Boys/Young men Girls/Young women

42 91

31.6 68.4

Age: M/SD 10–12 13–15 16–18 19–21 22–24

17.7 7 32 36 41 17

3.3 5.3 24.1 27.1 30.8 12.8

Race/Ethnicity White Black Latino/a Other

33 82 7 10

24.8 61.7 5.3 7.5

Length of stay 1–7 days 1–4 weeks 1–6 months N6 months

29 41 32 30

22.0 31.1 24.2 22.7

Note. Data is missing for one participant for length of stay and for race/ethnicity.

Participants were presented with questionnaires assessing 1) demographic and background characteristics, 2) overall satisfaction with the agency and 3) agency programming on the following dimensions suggested by Eccles and Gootman (2002): appropriate structure; safety; supportive relationships (agency peers and staff); opportunities to belong; positive social norms; support for efficacy and mattering; opportunities for skill building; and integration of school and community efforts (see Table 2 for descriptions, reliability coefficients, item numbers, and example items for scales used in study analyses). As no scale was currently in place to assess these dimensions simultaneously, items were adapted specifically to assess these dimensions in this sample. The dimensions positive social norms and opportunities for skill building were combined into a single scale encompassing encouragement for skill development, positive thinking, adaptive behavior and personal growth. We did not measure actual skill building opportunities, as we felt we might underestimate these experiences due to the diversity of programs, participant needs, and varying length of time spent at agencies at the point of data collection. Studies, questionnaires, and evaluation projects used to inform program scale development are presented in Table 3.

Table 2 Program dimension scale information. Scale Example items

Description

Items

Alpha

Appropriate structure

Organization; clear expectations; limit setting

12

0.77

Person, belongings are safe, unthreatened

10

0.74

Program staff are supportive, caring, friendly, and receptive to youth needs

23

0.95

19

0.92

13

0.84

14

0.83

31

0.96

10

–

27

–

11

0.88

There is a strong emphasis in following the rules at (this program). Safety I feel very safe here. Supportive relationships—staff

I can go to staff if I need advice or to talk about personal problems. Supportive relationships—peer

Program youth are supportive, caring, friendly

Youth at (this program) really help and support each other. Belonging

Agency-wide acceptance, comfort, engagement of all youth

There is a feeling of togetherness at (this program). Support for efficacy

Youth are encouraged to be independent, responsible, to express themselves; youth influence policies and activities

People really listen to me at (this program). Positive social norms

Encouragement for skill development, positive thinking, adaptive behavior personal growth

Staff and youth at (this program) have helped me: Use all my skills and knowledge. Feel I can accomplish things I set out to do. Family/School integration

Number of agency facilitated contacts and integrative experiences with families, romantic partners and schools

Staff have helped me with my relationship with my family. Community resources

Number of community services provided or referred by the agency

People at (this program) have connected me with the following services: Jobs Doctor/medical services Program satisfaction

Feeling satisfied with services, helped by the agency; recommends agency to others

I am satisfied with the amount of help I receive at (this program). Note. Coefficient alphas were calculated prior to mean replacement of missing item data.

1368

H.J. Heinze et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

Table 3 Scale development sources. Scale/Study

Authors

Topic of study

Published measures Client satisfaction and Acosta & Toro, 2000 needs assessment questionnaires

Characteristics of agency personnel, atmosphere, and the overall level of service satisfaction; Needs of homeless individuals

Interpersonal support evaluation list

Cohen & Hoberman, 1983

Emotional, instrumental, and informational support received from others

Family environment scale

Moos & Moos, 1986

Social/environmental characteristics of the family

Homeless children: Needs and services

Hicks-Coolick, Burnside-Eaton, & Peters, 2003

Needs of homeless children and available shelter services

Multidimensional student's life satisfaction scale

Huebner, 1994

Children's satisfaction with specific life domains (school, family, friends) and general overall life satisfaction

Things I have seen and heard

Richters & Martinez, 1990

Exposure to violence

Large scale studies MSALT, n.d. Michigan study of adolescent and adult life transitions

Housing and adolescent life outcomes project

Toro & Goldstein, 2000; Toro, Wolfe, & McCaskill, 2005

Impact of changes in classroom and family environments on adolescents' achievement-related behaviors and cognitions Longitudinal consequences of homelessness; risk and resilience factors associated with negative and positive outcomes

Program evaluation surveys Boys and girls club

Arbreton & McClanahan, 2002; Herrera & Arbreton, 2003

Evaluation of boys and girls clubs' outreach, recruitment and youth outcomes

Big brothers/big sisters

Tierney et al., 2000

Comparison study of youth assigned to mentors to waitlist controls to investigate mentoring relationships and their effects on youth outcomes

2.3. Procedure Researchers met with the agency directors to discuss the study and seek consent to participate. Following IRB approval, individual meetings were scheduled with agency directors and head staff to review study procedures and schedule data collection. At the first participating agency, surveys were presented to a small group of administrators, staff, and youth for review. All youth that were involved in agency services at the time of data collection were invited to participate. To minimize the intrusiveness of research activities, staff were not asked to provide additional information for youth unavailable or unwilling to participate. Interested participants age 18 and over and parents of participants under age 18 were presented with a written consent form. For participating agencies serving youth under age 18, consent from a legal guardian was required within 48 h of admission in order for youth to remain at the shelter. Agency staff provided parents or guardians with study information and consent forms along with program admission forms prior to scheduled data collection. Participants under the age of 18 were also provided with a similar written assent form. Researchers provided description and discussion

of the study prior to obtaining participant consent and assent. To account for reading difficulties yet maintain procedural consistency across participants, questionnaires were administered orally by a member of the research team in group format; participants recorded individual responses directly onto a questionnaire. Questionnaires were administered at a single time point and took approximately 1 h to 90 min to complete. Youth were given $10.00 for participating, and $100.00 was donated to each participating agency.

3. Results 3.1. Scale construction The original program dimension portion of the questionnaire consisted of 259 items. Following data collection, program dimension item groups were reconstructed based on factor structure, theory, and internal consistency. For each item group, exploratory principal component analysis was conducted using varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization to combine items into summary indices (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). Decisions to modify the original scales were based on the statistical properties of the component analyses as well as the theoretical and practical relevance of additional components to the current study. A few sections of the original questionnaire were excluded from analyses. For agency relationships, we originally included items assessing relationships in general, relationships with staff and relationships with peers. The 27-item general relationships portion of the scale was redundant with the staff relationship portion of the scale, yet items did not explicitly refer to “staff”. We therefore excluded these items from subsequent analyses, maintaining the more specific “staff” and “peer” portions of the relationship scale. In two scales (peer relationships and positive values) we originally included items assessing negative peer influence. Preliminary analyses revealed that these items did not correlate with their respective scales and we therefore questioned whether they reflected the positive relationships and values dimensions. These items were therefore excluded from subsequent analyses. Finally, the integration scale was divided into two scales, one scale assessing opportunities to connect with family members, schools and other outside contexts, one scale assessing number of resources and services available to program participants. Internal consistency analyses were then conducted to identify individual outlier items and assess reliability of revised dimension scales suggested by the exploratory component analyses. Items with low alphas were deleted. Internal consistency estimates (alphas) ranged from 0.74 (safety) to 0.96 (positive social norms). See Table 2 of this manuscript for descriptions, reliability coefficients, item numbers, and example items for scales used in the subsequent analyses.

Table 4 Program dimension scale item means and standard deviations (N = 133). Scale

M

SD

Appropriate structure Safety Relationships—staff Relationships—peer Belonging Support for efficacy Positive social norms Integration experiences Community resources

3.05 3.34 3.07 2.89 2.89 2.84 3.21 4.10 10.16

0.52 0.49 0.72 0.69 0.65 0.64 0.69 2.54 5.56

Note. Mean ratings are missing for one participant for safety and for belonging scales. Item means rage from 1 to 4, reflecting, on average, how positively (or negatively) participants rated items assessing specified program dimension within their experiences at the agency. Higher numbers indicate more positive ratings. For integration experiences and community resources, means refer to the number of family/school integration experiences and community resource items endorsed by youth.

H.J. Heinze et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

1369

Table 5 Intercorrelations among program dimension scales (N = 133). Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1. Structure 2. Safety 3. Staff relationshipsa 4. Peer relationships 5. Belonginga 6. Support for efficacya 7. Positive social norms 8. Family/School integration 9. Community resources 10. Program satisfaction

–

0.45** –

0.60** 0.55** –

0.53** 0.50** 0.66** –

0.60** 0.59** 0.80** 0.69** –

0.51** 0.51** 0.75** 0.61** 0.72** –

0.49** 0.41** 0.56** 0.50** 0.61** 0.61** –

0.15 0.22* 0.41** 0.37** 0.37* 0.34** 0.34** –

− 0.07 − 0.18* − 0.03 − 0.02 − 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.19* –

0.63** 0.47** 0.67** 0.55** 0.71** 0.67** 0.63** 0.23** 0.04 –

a

Scales combined to form the Empowerment Index. *p b 0.05 **p b 0.01.

To assess participant ratings across dimension scales, total scores were calculated by taking the arithmetic mean of the valid items contained within each scale. Thus, like individual item responses, total scores could range from 1 to 4, reflecting how much participants agree or disagree whether the program dimension is present in their program. If participants left individual items blank, total scores reflected the mean of the remaining scale items. For participants missing data for 50% or more items within a scale, total scores were indicated as missing for that scale. Mean total scores across scales are presented in Table 4.

3.3. Regression analyses A three-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to assess the extent to which program dimensions were associated with overall program satisfaction, and whether relationships between dimensions and satisfaction varied by age. Demographic variables significantly correlated with satisfaction, age, gender, ethnicity and time in program, were entered first (Step 1), followed by program dimension scale scores, safety, appropriate structure, empowerment, peer relationships, positive social norms, and family/school integration opportunities (Step 2), followed by age by program dimension interactions (Step 3). Due to the number of potential interactions, backward deletion was performed to identify significant age by program dimension interactions, following Step 3. Interaction terms retained following backwards removal were age by safety and age by structure. The final model was significant (F(12,115) = 20.78, p b 0.001), accounting for 68% of the variance (see Table 6), suggesting that how youth experience specific dimensions of agency programming is strongly associated with overall satisfaction. In the final model, there were significant main effects for participant age (β = 0.15), appropriate structure (β = 0.24), empowerment (β = 0.50), and positive social norms (β = 0.20). Findings suggest that older youth and youth who view the agency as more organized, with appropriate rules and encouragement for skill development and healthy behavior tend to be

3.2. Intercorrelations among program dimension scales Examination of intercorrelations among scales revealed moderate to strong relationships between some dimension scales, significant correlations ranging from r = − 0.18 to r = 0.80 (see Table 5). Belonging, supportive relationships-staff, and support for efficacy produced particularly strong intercorrelations (ranging from r = 0.72 to r = 0.80) and were therefore standardized using a z-transformation and then combined into a single empowerment index. Satisfaction was significantly correlated with all scales except for community resources. This scale was therefore excluded from the regression analysis.

Table 6 Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for predicting overall program satisfaction. Model 1

Model 2

Variable

B

SE B

β

B

Block 1 Age Gendera Race/ethnicityb Months in program

− 0.02 0.30 − 0.39 0.01

0.02 0.13 0.13 0.00

− 0.10 0.19* − 0.27** 0.21*

0.02 0.08 − 0.14 0.01

0.02 0.33 0.12 0.03 0.21 − 0.02

Block 2 Safety Appropriate structure Empowerment Peer relationships Positive social norms Family/School integration

Model 3 β

B

SE B

β

0.02 0.09 0.10 0.00

0.11 0.05 − 0.09 0.11

0.03 0.08 − 0.16 0.01

0.02 0.09 0.09 0.00

0.15* 0.05 − 0.11 0.10

0.11 0.10 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.02

0.01 0.24** 0.45** 0.03 0.20** − 0.08

0.11 0.33 0.13 − 0.04 0.21 − 0.02

0.11 0.10 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.02

0.08 0.24** 0.50** − 0.03 0.20** − 0.08

0.09 − 0.14

0.04 0.05

0.14* − 0.19**

SE B

Block 3 Age × Structure Age × Safety R2 R2adj F for change in R2

0.20 0.18 7.90**

*p b 0.05, **p b 0.01. a Boys and young men = 1, girls and young women = 2. b Caucasian youth = 1, youth of color = 2.

0.66 0.63 25.95**

0.68 0.65 4.69*

1370

H.J. Heinze et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

more satisfied overall with agency programming. Additionally, youth who experience a greater degree of acceptance, staff support, and opportunities to be responsible and provide input provide higher program satisfaction ratings. Backward stepwise removal of nonsignificant age by program dimension variables revealed two significant interactions, age by safety (β = −0.19) and age by appropriate structure (β = 0.14). Older youth who produced higher ratings for agency structure were more satisfied with agency programming than younger youth who produced higher ratings for agency structure. For younger youth, safety ratings were more strongly associated with satisfaction than for older youth. 4. Discussion 4.1. Conclusions The current study applies a positive youth development framework to examine service provision within community shelter settings. Specifically, relationships among youth ratings of program dimensions that promote developmental positive outcomes in traditional youth settings and overall satisfaction were explored to assess which program dimensions are significantly associated with each other and with youth satisfaction. Additionally, the relative strength of relationships between program dimensions and overall youth satisfaction of their agency experience was examined. Finally, relationships among program dimensions and satisfaction were examined by age. The results provide insight into youth assessment of service provision, and to what degree these assessments are linked to overall program satisfaction. As fewer than 50% of youth who experience homelessness are accessing shelter services (Ringwalt et al., 1998), factors associated with client satisfaction can shed light on quality of experience within agencies, such as factors that facilitate or deter utilization and engagement within services (Haber & Toro, 2004; Hoffman & Coffey, 2008). 4.2. Relationships among program dimensions Correlations among program dimensions reveal a fair degree of shared variance, raising the question as to whether some program dimensions may be better explained as a single construct. In this study, belonging, staff relationships, and support for efficacy were strongly correlated and therefore combined to form an empowerment index. Because these constructs were assessed concurrently, we can only make hypotheses regarding the nature of these relationships. Positive relationships with staff may be instrumental in helping young people to feel accepted within an agency, thereby encouraging participation in activities to promote skill development. Active participation and mastery in agency activities may also strengthen staff–client relationships. Most likely, relationships among these positive youth development opportunities are bidirectional and synergistic, thus enhancing the impact that each has on the others. 4.3. Program dimensions and satisfaction Examination of study intercorrelations revealed significant relationships among developmentally relevant program dimensions and overall satisfaction. Specifically, youth producing high ratings for agency structure, safety, relationship quality, belonging, support for efficacy, positive social norms, and family/school integration opportunities were more likely to be satisfied with agency programming overall. Thus, program dimensions identified in this study were consistent with the research conducted within traditional youth settings (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). In contrast, findings from the current study reflect how youth rate these factors within programs, rather than inferring the presence of dimensions from program descriptions.

The number of resources and services offered or referred by the agency was not correlated with overall satisfaction. Consistent with findings of Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003), findings suggest how homeless youth experience agencies overall is driven more by agency climate, interpersonal interactions and opportunities for personal growth than material goods, services, or other resources obtained through the agency. These findings have important implications for working with homeless youth. Building in time to develop and maintain youth–staff relationships may not only strengthen contacts with youth and families, it may enhance development and other growth opportunities, such as empowering youth to make positive life choices, thus enhancing access and benefit of resources and services available to them. Regression analyses suggest that some program dimensions may be particularly important in influencing how youth experience community agencies overall, such as structure and organization, empowerment (i.e., supportive staff relationships, support for efficacy, belonging) and positive social norms. Examination of interaction effects indicated that, for older youth, agency rules, organization and predictability were particularly important in guiding overall agency satisfaction, while safety was particularly important for younger youth. Thus older youth, who may be preparing for financial and living independence, may benefit more from a context where organization, responsibility, and self-management is emphasized, while younger youth, who rely more heavily on their caregivers, may benefit more from an emphasis on protection and security. 4.4. Limitations Results of this study provide important information as to how youth rate programs in terms of dimensions associated with positive development, and how these experiences are linked with overall satisfaction. Longitudinal research examining participants within agencies over time is needed to clarify temporal relationships among program dimensions and assess how dimensions and satisfaction ratings impact other outcomes of interest, such as length of stay, skill development, reintegration with families, school and occupational success, and a successful transition to independent living. Second, results provide some support for subscale reliability; however, findings are tentative given the number of participants. Similarly, in the final model of the regression equation (Step 3), the addition of the two interaction variables exceeds the rule of thumb discussed by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) for recommended ratio of cases to predictors in testing the multiple correlation. Step 3 should therefore be interpreted with caution. Further research is necessary to assess possible differences across ratings of program dimensions and across relationships between dimensions and satisfaction within different settings, locations, and participant groups. Thirdly, due to the transient nature of program participants and to minimize intrusiveness of data collection at participating agencies, we collected information for participants available and interested in participating. We did not ask staff to collect information on those participants who did not participate as 1) we thought it might create additional work for staff and 2) we wanted to minimize any association with the research and staff efforts, so as not to affect service delivery. Informal conversations with staff suggested that in the few cases in which program youth did not participate, they were either unavailable due to work or other commitments or were not able to secure parental consent in time for the data collection. It is also likely, however, that youth who did not participate were less engaged or satisfied with programming overall. In several studies, youth have identified factors that hinder use or helpfulness of programs and services including 1) unsafe, disruptive or undesirable settings, 2) rigid rules or excessive responsibilities, 3) disrespectful, uncaring, or unavailable staff, and 4) lack of individualized/targeted programming (Aviles & Helfrich, 2004; De Rosa et al., 1999; Karabanow & Rains, 1997; Thompson, McManus,

H.J. Heinze et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

Lantry, Windsor, & Flynn, 2006). Further research is needed to examine positive developmental processes within less engaged or satisfied subgroups of participants. 4.5. Implications for practice and policy The findings of this study clarify key dimensions of service provision within a sample of homeless youth and suggest ways in which dimensions combine and interact with client factors to influence youth satisfaction. Consistent with research conducted in traditional youth settings (Eccles & Gootman, 2002), our findings support the importance of strength building resources and experiences in services for homeless youth and youth at risk for homelessness. In terms of service delivery, findings support balancing caring, supportive staff– participant relationships with clear expectations and limit setting, while providing age-appropriate opportunities for strength identification, skill building and personal growth. Research suggests that self-esteem is a key protective factor in decreasing risk across negative outcomes in homeless youth, and may even buffer the effect of risk factors prevalent in this population (Kidd & Shahar, 2008). Strict rules and harsh consequences in the absence of empathy, respect, and autonomy may lead to loss of trust and feelings of shame among youth (Slesnick et al., 2009), thus hindering program engagement and positive developmental processes. Youth development of skills and competencies may be enhanced by providing opportunities for youth involvement in decision-making around rules and expectations, in guiding or directing activities, and in helping others. Frontline staff, those individuals who spend extensive time with program participants, are instrumental in providing support and strength-building experiences associated with overall engagement and satisfaction as well as positive youth development. Unfortunately, staff often must overcome numerous obstacles that hinder their efforts with these youth. Providers cite lack of funding, low salaries, and insufficient and/or inexperienced staff as major barriers to sensitive and effective service delivery (Brooks, Milburn, RotheramBorus, & Witkin, 2004). This lack of resources is only compounded by working with youth and families with multiple and complex needs, and without sufficient support resources in place, will inevitably lead to feelings of emotional exhaustion, distancing, and feelings of ineffectiveness (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Educational, supervisory, and peer dialogue experiences can reduce severity and frequency of symptoms by offering opportunities to process difficult interactions and related emotions and to develop expertise in addressing needs and issues specific to homeless youth and families (Maslach et al., 2001; Slesnick et al., 2008b). At the policy level, there is increasing demand on agency administrators, practitioners and civic leaders for accountability in using public monies to fund intervention and prevention programs (Flay et al., 2005). Given the immediate and long-term benefits of positive developmental experiences, findings of youth service research can inform funding decisions regarding program support, implementation, and development. Though the findings of this study align with literature on traditional youth settings, supporting the importance contextual processes that promote positive developmental outcomes, much concerning the identification and assessment of processes and outcomes associated with youth service provision remains unspecified. Funders, administrators, and academic departments need to support and advocate for projects conducted outside of the laboratory, collaborating with community stakeholders in examining real-life practices in order to identify, support and build sensitive, effective programming for homeless and at-risk youth (Haber & Toro, 2004). Acknowledgements The research reported in this article was supported in part by a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation Seed Grant program

1371

administered by the Merrill-Palmer Institute for Child and Family Development, Detroit, MI. The authors thank the youth, staff and administration at the participating agencies who provided time, insight and resources to make this project possible. To these special individuals, we dedicate this work. We also thank the faculty and students in the Research Group on Homelessness and Poverty at Wayne State University involved in project planning, data collection and dissemination: Bart Miles, Patrick Fowler, Carolyn Tompsett, Mason Haber, Lindsey Sander, Karen Hobden and Nicole Ouellette. Finally, we would like to thank Marianne McGrath and Joe Kazemi for their feedback and suggestions for the manuscript.

References Acosta, O., & Toro, P. A. (2000). Let's ask the homeless people themselves: A needs assessment based on a probability sample of adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 343−366. Arbreton, A. J. A., & McClanahan, W. S. (2002, March). Targeted outreach: Boys & Girls Clubs of America's approach to gang prevention and intervention. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved May 9, 2009 from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/ publications/assets/148_publication.pdf. Aviles, A., & Helfrich, C. (2004). Life skill service needs. Perspectives of homeless youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 331−338. Bender, K., Thompson, S. J., McManus, H., Lantry, J., & Flynn, P. M. (2007). Capacity for survival: Exploring strengths of homeless street youth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 36, 25−42. Brooks, R. A., Milburn, N. G., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Witkin, A. (2004). The system-ofcare for homeless youth: Perceptions of service providers. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 443−451. Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention and Treatment, 5, ArtID15 Re tr i e v e d o nl i n e o n M a y 9 , 2 0 0 9 f r om h tt p : / / a sp e . h hs . go v /h s p / PositiveYouthDev99/. Chen, X., Thrane, L., Whitbeck, L. B., & Johnson, K. (2006). Mental disorders, comorbidity and postrunaway arrests among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 379−402. Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99−125. De Rosa, C. J., Montgomery, S. B., Kipke, M. D., Iverson, E., Ma, J. L., & Unger, J. B. (1999). Service utilization among homeless and runaway youth in Los Angeles, California: Rates and reasons. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 449−458. Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10−43. Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865−889. Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151−175. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286−299. Gardner, M., Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Adolescents' participation in organized activities and developmental success 2 and 8 years after high school: Do sponsorship, duration and intensity matter? Developmental Psychology, 44, 814−830. Green, R. S., & Ellis, P. T. (2007). Linking structure, process and outcome to improve group home services for foster youth in California. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 307−317. Grossman, J. B., Price, M. L., Fellerath, V., Juvocy, L. Z., Kotloff, L. J., Raley, R., et al. (2002, June). Multiple choices after school: Findings from the extended-service schools initiative. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved May 9, 2009 from http:// www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/116_publication.pdf. Haber, M. G., & Toro, P. A. (2004). Homelessness among families, children, and adolescents: An ecological-developmental perspective. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 126−164. Halcón, L. L., & Lifson, A. R. (2004). Prevalence and predictors of sexual risks among homeless youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 71−80. Hammer, H., Finkelhor, D., & Sedlak, A. J. (2002, October). Runaway/Thrownaway children: National estimates and characteristics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin– NCJ196469, 1–12. Order (MC18). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/nismart/04/index.html. Herrera, C., & Arbreton, A. J. A. (2003, January). Increasing opportunities for older youth in after-school programs: A report of the experiences of boys & girls clubs in Boston and New York City. Retrieved May 9, 2009 from http://www.ppv.org/ppv/ publications/assets/146_publication.pdf. Hicks-Coolick, A., Burnside-Eaton, P., & Peters, A. (2003). Homeless children: Needs and services. Child & Youth Care Forum, 32, 197−210.

1372

H.J. Heinze et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010) 1365–1372

Hoffman, L., & Coffey, B. (2008). Dignity and indignation: How people experiencing homelessness view services and providers. The Social Science Journal, 45, 207−222. Huebner, E. S. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children. Psychological Assessment, 6, 149−158. Israel, N., & Toro, P. A. (2003, July). Homeless clients’ and service providers’ perceptions of client service needs and access. Unpublished report. Retrieved April 11, 2009 from Wayne State University, Research Group on Homelessness & Poverty Website, http: //sun.science.wayne.edu/ptoro/natep10txt.pdf Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M. H. (2003). Why do they leave? Why do they stay? Quantitative and qualitative predictors of school dropout. April. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference for the Society for Research in Child Development Tampa, FL. Karabanow, J. M., & Rains, P. (1997). Structure versus caring: Discrepant perspectives in a shelter for street kids. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 301−321. Kidd, S. A., & Davidson, L. (2007). “You have to adapt because you have no other choice”: The stories of strength and resilience of 208 homeless you the in New York City and Toronto. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 219−238. Kidd, S. A., & Shahar, G. (2008). Resilience in homeless youth: The key role of selfesteem. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 163−172. Kim, M. J., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Huang, B. (2009). Early child maltreatment, runaway youths, and risk of delinquency and victimization in adolescence: A meditational model. Social Work Research, 33, 19−28. Kortsch, G., Kurtines, W. M., & Montgomery, M. J. (2008). A Multistage Longitudinal Comparative (MLC) Design Stage II: Evaluation of the Changing Lives Program (CLP): The Possible Selves Questionnaire—Qualitative Extensions (PSQ–QE). Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 342−358. Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. The American Psychologist, 55, 170−183. Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42, 849−863. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17−71. Lewis Arango, L., Kurtines, W. M., Montgomery, M. J., & Ritchie, R. (2008). A Multi-Stage Longitudinal Comparative Design Stage II Evaluation of the Changing Lives Program: The Life Course Interview (RDA-LCI). Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 310−341. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397−422. McCaskill, P. A., Toro, P. A., & Wolfe, S. M. (1998). Homeless and matched housed adolescents: A comparative study of psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 306−319. The Michigan Study of Adolescent and Adult Transitions (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2009 from the University of Michigan, Gender and Achievement Research Program Web site, http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/msalt/. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1986). Family environment scale manual, 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Richters, J., & Martinez, P. (1990). Things I have seen and heard: A structured interview for assessing young children's violence exposure. Washington DC: National Institute of Mental Health. Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M., Robertson, M., & McPheeters, M. (1998). The prevalence of homelessness among adolescents in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1325−1329.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94−111. Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., & Mannes, M. (2006). The contribution to adolescent wellbeing made by nonfamily adults: An examination of developmental assets as contexts and processes. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 401−413. Slesnick, N., Bartle-Haring, S., Dashora, P., Kang, M. J., & Aukward, E. (2008a). Predictors of homelessness among street living youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 465−474. Slesnick, N., Glassman, M., Garren, R., Toviessi, P., Bantchevska, D., & Dashora, P. (2008b). How to open and sustain a drop-in center for homeless youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 727−734. Slesnick, N., Dashora, P., Letcher, A., Erdem, G., & Serovich, J. (2009). A review of services and interventions for runaway and homeless youth: Moving forward. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 732−742. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Thompson, S. J., McManus, H., Lantry, J., Windsor, L., & Flynn, P. (2006). Insights from the street: Perceptions of services and providers by homeless young adults. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 34−43. Thompson, S. J., & Pollio, D. E. (2006). Adolescent runaway models: Application of an estrangement model of recidivism. Social Work Research, 30, 245−251. Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., & Resch, N.L. (2000, September). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters Retrieved May 9, 2009 from http://www. ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/111_publication.pdf. Toro, P.A., Dworsky, A., & Fowler, P.J. (2007). Homeless youth in the United States: Recent research findings and intervention approaches. In D. Dennis, G. Locke, & J. Khadduri (Eds.), Toward understanding homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved May 9, 2009 from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/ symposium07/toro/index.htm. Toro, P. A., & Goldstein, M. S. (2000). Outcomes among homeless and matched housed adolescents: A longitudinal comparison. August. Paper presented at the 108th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association Washington, DC. Toro, P. A., Wolfe, S. M., & McCaskill, P. A. (2005). A comparison of homeless and matched housed adolescents on family environment variables. In L. B. Alexander, & P. Solomon (Eds.), The research process in the social services: Behind the scenes. Belmont, CA: Thompson. Tyler, K. A., & Bersani, B. E. (2008). A longitudinal study of early adolescent precursors to running away. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 230−251. Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Ackley, K. A. (1997). Families of homeless and runaway adolescents: A comparison of parent/caretaker and adolescent perspectives on parenting, family violence, and adolescent conduct. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 517−528. Whitbeck, L. B., Johnson, K. D., Hoyt, D. R., & Cauce, A. M. (2004). Mental disorder and comorbidity among runaway and homeless adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 132−140. Whitbeck, L. B., & Simons, R. L. (1990). Life on the streets: The victimization of runaway and homeless adolescents. Youth and Society, 22, 108−125. Wolfe, S. M., Toro, P. A., & McCaskill, P. A. (1999). A comparison of homeless and matched housed adolescents on family environment variables. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 53−66. Yoder, K. A., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2001). Event history analysis of antecedents to running away from home and being on the street. The American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 51−65.