Youth Leadership Supplement - umb.edu

* UMass Boston: Center for Social Development and Education: Fall 2012 www.specialolympics.org

YOUTH LEADERSHIP WHAT IS YOUTH LEADERSHIP?

HOW DOES MY SCHOOL ENGAGE YOUTH?

Project UNIFY Year 5 Evaluation Supplement

INCLUSIVE YOUTH LE ADERSHIP RESE ARCH Special Olympics International has emphasized the importance of youth leadership and activation

since the inception of Project UNIFY. One of the core components of Project UNIFY programming is

that State SO Programs will support schools in providing youth with inclusive leadership and

activation opportunities. SOI’s guidelines vaguely define youth leadership, but suggest that State SO

Programs support schools in providing youth with and without ID opportunities to participate in

school-wide activities and leadership roles to promote Project UNIFY activities in schools. State SO

Programs have actively created inclusive leadership opportunities at the state level, but have had an

interest in allowing schools to adapt Project UNIFY to fit their needs; therefore, it was expected that

leadership would look different as well. Examining inclusive youth leadership in schools is important

given that schools have varying levels of involvement and dedication from youth and staff.

Learning more about how leadership is incorporated into Project UNIFY programming in schools for

youth with and without disabilities triggered the exploratory research that took place in the fall of

2012. State SO Programs have recognized the importance of inclusive youth leadership by

developing state and community level opportunities such as the Youth Activation Committees and

hosting Youth Summits for youth to engage and share their ideas and experiences. However, with

great strides at the state level, it was unclear how opportunities for leadership are being incorporated

in schools. The following document provides observations on what is taking place in schools, along

with an analysis about how leadership is being interpreted at the school level. The goal of this

document is to present the results of this exploratory research and to present ideas for moving

forward.

In many Project UNIFY schools, there are certain youth that stand out as the passionate, dedicated,

Project UNIFY advocate. Youth will say, “Project UNIFY has changed my life” and talk about how the

experience has influenced their future goals. However, not all schools have youth that are engaged

2 | Special Olympics

with Project UNIFY at such a level. These questions around which youth tend to get involved and why

they connect to Project UNIFY at varying commitment levels fueled the research around leadership in

school settings.

As part of the Year 5 evaluation, the UMass Boston evaluation team visited four Project UNIFY schools

during the fall of 2012 to explore how inclusive youth leadership is being interpreted in schools. While

this analysis was limited by the number of schools involved in the evaluation, the key findings in

schools were similar and therefore relevant for more states and schools to learn from. A framework

titled “Understanding the Continuum of Youth Involvement” was used for the development of

research questions and later for analysis of the youth leaders, administrators, and school liaisons to

get their perspectives on what leadership means in their school. The schools were visited in the

month of October in both North Carolina and Colorado. In each state, one middle school and one high

school participated in a half-day school visit. Although every school was different in terms of their

school culture and Project UNIFY program, many similar themes in the area of inclusive youth

leadership emerged.

Understanding the Continuum of Youth Involvement FR AMEWORK BY ANDERSON WILLIAMS “Understanding the Continuum of Youth Involvement” is a framework developed by education

consultant Anderson Williams. Williams’ framework explains how the progression of youth

involvement is dependent on the role that adults play, the interactions between youth and adults, and

how decisions are made. He explains his research by suggesting “that often there is a mismatch of

reality between what adult intentions are and what the youth’s reality truly is.” The continuum

consists of four stages: youth Participation, youth having more of a Voice, youth Leadership, and, at

the highest level, youth Engagement. The “Understanding the Continuum of Youth Involvement”

framework aligns well with how Project UNIFY programming is structured and facilitated in schools

and is similar to programs Anderson Williams envisioned when creating this framework. Each stage is

described briefly below, along with examples of the questions posed to youth and adults at each

school.

• Participation o Definition: Youth become involved and participate in activities that are planned by the

adults.

o Example youth question: How often do you participate in Project UNIFY activities?

o Example adult question: How involved are you with getting youth to participate?


• Voice o Definition: The adults ask more questions of the youth and want them to share their

opinions. The adult is still heavily involved in most planning and decision-making; youth

just have an opportunity to share their thoughts.

o Example youth question: Do you ever share your opinions or offer to help with Project

UNIFY?

o Example adult question: Are there explicit times and processes for including youth

ideas and input?

• Leadership o Definition: Adults interact with youth more as partners in planning and decision-

making and they share responsibilities.

o Example youth question: Have you taken responsibility to help lead or plan a Project

UNIFY activity?

o Example adult question: What kinds of responsibilities are youth leaders given for

Project UNIFY? How do you support them?

• Engagement o Definition: Youth are the primary drivers of the work being accomplished and there is

high level of trust from the adults.

o Example youth question: Who generally speaks first at meetings? Who is the ultimate

decision maker?

o Example adult question: Do youth ever make the final decisions about Project UNIFY

activities?

During the school visits, it was essential to ask questions of both youth and adults since their

interpretations of leadership and involvement were important to get a complete picture of how

leadership is being fostered in their Project UNIFY program. Youth were asked questions about their

involvement and specifics about the facilitation of Project UNIFY at their school. Questions explored

youth’ priorities, their previous experience with leadership, leadership opportunities for youth with

disabilities, and how vocal they were during Project UNIFY activities and planning processes. School

liaisons were asked about their role in encouraging youth leadership, how youth with disabilities were

engaged, their role as a facilitator, the club structure, and how often they were speaking during

Project UNIFY activities. Administrators were asked about their perceptions of youth leadership both

in schools and the Project UNIFY program. The combination of responses from youth, liaisons, and

administrators highlighted some key findings about how inclusive youth leadership is being

interpreted and exercised in schools implementing Project UNIFY.


Understanding the Continuum of Youth Involvement Participation Voice Leadership Engagement

Yout

h R

ole

s Youth are involved in the “doing” of the activity, but not in

the planning, development or

reflection.

Youth are part of conversations regarding

planning and implementing an idea.

Their input is considered, but they may or may not

have an official “vote”.

Youth are involved at all levels of idea or project development and have

formal and informal leadership roles in the

process.

Youth are the primary drivers of the work

from conceptualization to implementation and reflection. Youth

“own” and understand the work deeply.

Ad

ult

Ro

les

Adults develop the idea, plan and

organize all aspects of the activity or

event, which a cadre of young people will

actually carry out.

Adults develop and set the agenda and facilitate

the process. Adults include the input of

youth in this process. This can be through

consideration of youth input via focus group or

meeting or through youth being involved in

and having a formal vote.

Adults are involved in the full process and support

the development of individual youth and the

flow of the process, but in a way that balances power and leadership with youth.

Adults allow youth to struggle and make mistakes in a safe environment.

Adults provide a support role and share

ownership and commitment but with some deference to the youth. Adults hold one

“vote” on the team.

Dec

ision-Mak

ing

Adults make all decisions.

Adults ultimately make the decision with the

consideration of youth input. If youth have a

vote, they are typically outnumbered or adults

have ultimate veto power.

Youth and adults share decision making power

often requiring a specific and mutually agreed upon decision-making process.

Youth ultimately make the decisions with the

inclusion of adult input and “vote”.

PU

Exa

mp

le

Youth participate in Project UNIFY

activities that the school liaison

organizes. Youth love to participate, but have no insight or

voice for what Project UNIFY should

be.

A school liaison wants help with raising

awareness about Project UNIFY so they ask several

youth to give presentations to

classrooms. The youth have a voice and make a

presentation, but the liaison directs what is

taking place.

The school liaison meets with the youth president of the Project UNIFY club

to discuss what the partners club meeting will be about. They share their

opinions, but the youth president and other officers facilitate the meeting. Youth feel

ownership, but rely on the liaison heavily for logistic

support.

Youth have full ownership of Project

UNIFY and their partners club. The liaison oversees

activities, but allows the youth’ passion for

Project UNIFY to develop. The liaison

support the youth by providing the

knowledge and guidance youth need

to feel confident about their work.


Project UNIFY Schools PL ACING SCHOOLS ON THE CONTINUUM Of the four Project UNIFY schools that were visited, one of the schools could be considered a

Participation school. They had many youth participate in inclusive classes and activities; however, they

did not have a club or time to get together to share their ideas and interests. The school had many

youth who would be considered leaders because they were heavily involved and passionate youth

who participated as teacher assistants and aides for special education youth. However, the program

structure supported a mentor- mentee interaction and did not provide other opportunities for these

passionate youth to have more of a planning and advocacy role as a leader.

Two of the schools could be considered Voice schools. They had a large base of youth participants and

a few youth that were appointed roles to be the voice behind the cause. These youth were appointed

to these roles and generally worked closely with the liaison to determine their responsibilities, as

opposed to taking the initiative themselves. Interestingly, there was one youth who as an individual

could be considered a highly engaged Project UNIFY youth leader. She was a youth that commented

on how Project UNIFY changed her life and she now wanted to dedicate her life to working with

Special Olympics. However, the school as a whole did not have opportunities for her to reach the

highest level of Engagement within the “Understanding the Continuum of Youth Involvement”

framework because decision-making roles were limited to the adults.

The fourth school could be considered a Leadership school due to the large number of participants

and structured club with over five elected positions to fill. Interestingly, strong youth leaders held

many of the elected positions, but the youth personally had not embraced Project UNIFY as a

program that related to their personal mission and future goals. Instead these were youth that

wanted to be, and served as, leaders for anything and everything in the school. Their lack of

connection may be related to the fact that the liaison was still very involved in the implementation

and facilitation, which limited some of the youth’s potential.

WHAT MAKES A PROJEC T UNIF Y LE ADER? During the school visits, questions were asked of both youth and adults about what types of youth

participate in Project UNIFY programming. In general, when asked about youth participants who were

leaders, youth with disabilities were not mentioned, but rather thought of as participants. Some

adults and youth mentioned youth with disabilities as leaders at the state level, participating in state

sporting events or the Youth Activation Committee, but these schools did not have inclusive youth

leadership opportunities in school.


Of the four administrators that

answered this question, all of them

referred to Project UNIFY participants

and leaders as youth who have a

nurturing spirit, that are sensitive and

that are the ones that want to be

involved in all school activities. From

their perspective, youth don’t

participate in Project UNIFY because it

will look good on a college application,

it’s because these youth enjoy working

together and being better people.

Liaisons had a slightly different

perspective, thinking about Project

UNIFY youth as the ones who could

commit, were passionate, were open-minded and accepting and also had good organization and

presentation skills. For liaisons, youth leaders were the ones that could advocate for the program. On

the other hand, when we asked the youth about characteristics for Project UNIFY participants and

leaders, about half of youth mentioned, first and foremost, that you need to have patience. Other

qualities that youth mentioned related to social skills, a willingness to help, good attitude,

understanding, and friendliness.

In general, youth leadership looked different in middle schools compared to high schools. These

differences were most likely related to the ages of youth involved and the different responsibilities

and expectations within each grade level. Interestingly, there was also a difference between 7th and

8th graders when it came to youth leadership compared to youth in high school. In middle school,

there seemed to be a clear hierarchy of who had more responsibility, which relied more on transitions

with your grade level. The term “passing on the baton of responsibility and leadership” from 8th

graders to 7th graders seemed to be more relevant in middle schools, whereas in high schools,

responsibility and leadership roles were more diffused across grade levels and were not as important

to the structure of the program.


Analysis and Areas for Improvement A consistent characteristic across the Project UNIFY schools was that the liaison was passionate about

their work and the youth who were involved. There was no doubt that liaisons believed they were

making a difference in the school and in the lives of the youth. However, beyond that passion there

was also a consistent misconception and general vagueness as to what inclusive youth leadership

means for Project UNIFY and how they should or could be supporting it.

BARRIERS FOR YOUTH LEADERSHIP Overall, barriers to youth leadership for Project UNIFY programs fell into two categories. The first

barrier is related to the way in which the program was structured and how it created or impeded

inclusive youth leadership opportunities. The second barrier is related to the lack of a clear definition

or sense of vagueness as to what inclusive youth leadership means in a school setting. Schools had

varying philosophies for what leadership inferred which impacted how youth were engaged.

Program Structure

The structure of a Project UNIFY program refers to the processes and infrastructure established to

make decisions around Project UNIFY activities. Generally when schools first start Project UNIFY, they

are informed by their State SO Program about the three components of Project UNIFY: an inclusive

sports opportunity, a whole-school involvement activity, and opportunities for inclusive leadership

and interactions. While some schools are provided with resources to develop ideas for the Project

UNIFY components, a structure or guide for how schools should implement components does not

exist in all states. The lack of guidance for how schools could implement Project UNIFY programming

has led to structures that are not necessarily able to support all three components.

Interestingly, every school that participated in Project UNIFY had created a different structure that

aligned with their school and how they initially thought they could best facilitate activities.

Specifically, of the four schools that participated in the evaluation, all included a whole-school

involvement activity as part of their Project UNIFY program. However, some were still figuring out

how to include inclusive sports and provide leadership opportunities for youth. The main reason

schools had not yet figured out a way to implement all three components of Project UNIFY related

heavily to whether the program had a forum for youth to discuss their interests and ideas for Project

UNIFY. Since there were no opportunities for youth gather and to step into leadership roles this

resulted in youth following the adults’ lead.


Research from the Year 4 evaluation explains how leadership opportunities are generally the last

component of Project UNIFY programming that schools implement. For most schools, the focus

generally has been on just ensuring that activities from the components take place, rather than

creating a structure that supports all three components of Project UNIFY. The focus on solely

implementing activities has interfered with thinking through a structure that utilizes the youth to help

with the implementation. A structure that places youth in positions of leadership and decision making

to help with planning and implementation can ensure more activities take place, but that the program

will have great youth buy-in as well.

Definition of Leadership

A school’s philosophy around inclusive youth leadership greatly influenced how both the adults and

youth defined the word “leadership.” When asked about participants and leaders in Project UNIFY,

adults and youth interpreted the questions differently, which reflected varying perceptions on what

participation and leadership meant for Project UNIFY. Some schools had a philosophy that youth

leadership in Project UNIFY should be a small group of youth with strategic roles. These schools were

thoughtful and believed that a small group of youth who were strong leaders and possess the

necessary skills to lead Project UNIFY activities was the best model. While some schools had more

structured youth gatherings with a hierarchy of leadership, there were other schools where youth

leadership was basically equivalent to youth participation. In these schools there was in effect an

open-invitation approach to leadership; the more youth involved the better. In these open-invitation

schools, the gatherings of youth could be quite large, but the thinking behind what youth leadership

meant was unclear. These varying philosophies influenced how Project UNIFY was structured, in terms

of whether there were assigned leadership roles or elected positions, scheduled formal meetings

with planned agendas or more informal meetings, and whether or not the liaison led the meetings or

youth did.

Structural Barriers

o No forum for discussion with youth

o No roles for youth to fulfill

o No processes, schedule, or consistency for

program

Philosophical Barriers

o No definition of youth leadership

o Does leadership mean

involvement?

o Lack of trust for youth to hold

responsibilities

o Liaison is used to having all the responsibility


ROLE OF SCHOOL LIAISON While each school was different in how they envisioned their Project UNIFY program, it was evident

that the school liaison put a large amount of work into creating the infrastructure and facilitating the

processes of the program. In most of the schools, youth considered liaisons to be the ultimate

decision-makers for ensuring Project UNIFY activities happened in the school. Some additional roles

liaisons played included being in charge of the schedule, getting meeting space, creating the agenda

for meetings, and typically speaking first at the meetings. It was clear that while most Project UNIFY

programs encouraged youth to share their opinions and brainstorm ideas during meetings, the liaison

still played the role as the main leader.

Liaisons generally have positioned themselves in the facilitation role for their Project UNIFY program.

This has limited the potential opportunities that would be available for youth to fulfill. The

“Understanding the Continuum of Youth Involvement” framework helps to explain how the

Leadership and the Engagement level for youth will not be possible without a shared leadership and

stronger trust from the liaison.

In the Year 4 evaluation, liaisons often reported that the biggest challenge with implementing Project

UNIFY was time. With this knowledge, liaisons should see increased responsibilities for youth leaders

as a solution to that challenge. During interviews, liaisons were able to identify why youth

participated in Project UNIFY and the skills they obtained; however, they have not quite figured out

how to utilize their youth. Several liaisons seemed unsure about how to develop youth as leaders.

This revealed a lack of training and understanding among the liaisons that they may not be building

the knowledge around the value of the Project UNIFY among the youth which in turn could result in

having the youth spread the message of Project UNIFY throughout the school. Of the four schools

that were visited, no schools were engaging youth at the high Engagement level due to the fact that

schools had not created those opportunities.

The number of schools involved in the evaluation limited the analysis and exploration of the four

Project UNIFY schools, but the struggles evident in the schools were similar and therefore are likely to

be relatable to many Project UNIFY schools. The next section outlines ideas around how to facilitate

inclusive youth leadership in the school including building a structure and employing a philosophy for

the Project UNIFY program that supports and facilitates inclusive youth leadership.

VS.


Implementation Ideas for Adults and Youth to Move Toward ENGAGEMENT Most adults in the schools that were visited believed that youth leadership was truly important and

encouraged in their school. Even though youth with disabilities were engaged in many of the school

activities, they were not thought about when discussing leadership in the school. All schools offered a

wide variety of opportunities for youth to be involved from academic councils to after-school clubs.

While Project UNIFY was a club in some schools, it was a class, program, or an ideology in other

schools. Therefore how Project UNIFY looked in a school greatly

influenced how liaisons and other adults in the school could engage youth

leaders. However, if inclusive youth leadership is an area of focus for a

Project UNIFY program, structures will need to be in place to allow

leadership to take shape.

The following ideas will encourage structural changes, changes in

communication and interactions, and ensure youth with and without

disabilities have opportunities to participate with Project UNIFY at a

higher level of Engagement.

o Create an environment where all voices are heard o Determine philosophy on youth leadership (Example: how

many youth are involved, who and how decisions are

made? Equal numbers for youth with and without

disabilities? What is realistic?) o What does your program infrastructure look like?

o Establish a structured club for Project UNIFY participants: o Determine changes based on whether the club is new or

existing?

o Identify what needs to be created to provide inclusive

youth leadership opportunities beyond Participation and

toward Leadership and Engagement. o Create consistent meeting times

§ This is a time for youth with similar interests and

passions to interact and share ideas for activities to

have at the school

o Elect youth for roles such as President, Vice President,

Secretary

PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES

FOR YOUTH LEADERSHIP

PARTICIPATE

VOICE

LEADERSHIP ENGAGEMENT

DELEGATE

RESPONSIBILITIES

Elected positions

Establish committees

Share agenda and activity planning

Strengthen knowledge and understanding of

program

Youth’s voice is heard VOTE!


§ Create more opportunities by creating positions to encourage leadership

(Examples: Sports Manager, Photographer, Advertising)

§ Create committees for small groups to focus on overarching tasks (Examples:

R-word committee, school awareness committee, staff engagement

committee)

o Share between liaisons and youth leaders planning roles such as creating the agendas

for the meetings and working with administration

o Allow for youth to lead and facilitate discussions

o Collectively, decide how the club will make decisions (Examples: youth vote, liaison

makes the final call, the President makes the final call)

o Strengthen the knowledge and understanding of Project UNIFY programming

o Identify those youth with and without disabilities that truly enjoy and connect to

Project UNIFY. The youth often have innate qualities toward wanting to help

o Increase the knowledge of Project UNIFY values for youth and allow time for youth to

reflect on their experiences to increase the meaning of their involvement and perhaps

the level of their involvement

o Support youth with true passions for Project UNIFY to take on responsibilities to help

take your program to the next level

Youth Leadership Supplement - umb.edu

Documents

Transcript of Youth Leadership Supplement - umb.edu