Application of a Youth-Adult Partnership Model to Facilitate Skill Development Among Military-Connected Youth

Abstract

Background: Out-of-school time programs have proven to be effective models for promoting positive youth development. Because military-connected youth face unique stressors, programs that intentionally address the specific needs of military-connected youth may offer additional opportunities for positive outcomes. Boys and Girls Clubs of America partners with the U.S. Armed Forces to provide programs, such as the Military Teen Ambassadors (MTA) program, to support military youth and families. MTA allows for a partnership between teens and adults to work towards shared program goals. Purpose: Informed by the youth-adult partnership Framework and the Community Action Framework for Positive Youth Development, this study examines how participation in one MTA program structure—the MTA Steering Committee—influences interactions between youth and adults, impacts skill development, and contributes to future career preparedness and success of military-connected youth. Method: A mixed-methods survey was administered to MTA Steering Committee members to evaluate both immediate and long-term outcomes associated with MTA participation through a cross-sectional design. Findings: The study provided evidence of program impacts supporting growth in targeted leadership and career skills and strengthened youth-adult relationships. Implications: Program factors influencing outcomes included opportunities to practice and apply skills and accountability to peers and adults.

Keywords

survey/questionnaire out-of-school time adolescents veteran/military leadership training

Out-of-school time (OST) programs are recognized as an effective model for fostering healthy and positive development among children and adolescents (Durlak et al., 2010; Fukkink & Boogaard, 2020; Vandell et al., 2015). High-quality OST youth programs have been associated with higher academic achievement (Barr et al., 2006), increased social skills (Grogan et al., 2014), and positive emotional outcomes (Bang et al., 2020). A defining feature of high-quality OST programs is positive youth development (PYD), which informs intentional programming to facilitate strengths-based supports and opportunities for youth (Dimitrova & Wiium, 2021). By adopting PYD frameworks, OST programs can create physically and emotionally safe places for youth, provide opportunities to build positive and supportive relationships with peers and adults, facilitate skill development in areas aligned with youth strengths and interests that foster meaningful involvement, voice, and leadership (Shinn & Yoshikawa, 2008).

Relationships with dedicated, attentive adults are an important program component for achieving PYD outcomes (Li & Julian, 2012; Weybright et al., 2017). Relationships with caring adults positively influence youth in multiple ways, including the ability to regulate emotions, build trust in others, and develop social skills (Li & Julian, 2012; Yu & Deutsch, 2021). Despite attempts from OST program providers to foster and maintain positive youth-adult relationships, the nature of these relationships can vary widely across contexts and youth populations (Bowers et al., 2015; Yu & Deutsch, 2021; Zeldin et al., 2016).

One such population is military-connected youth, those youth whose parents have been deployed, prepared for deployment, or have lost their lives during service. Military-connected youth face conventional challenges associated with adolescent development and must also navigate the uncertainty of a military family lifestyle (Bello-Utu & DeSocio, 2015; Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011). Therefore, supportive and enduring relationships with adults in OST programs may be particularly beneficial for military-connected youth. Given the effectiveness of programs centered on youth-adult relationships for addressing the needs of marginalized youth and the limited literature on programs targeting military-connected youth (Sullivan & Larson, 2010; Ungar, 2015; Weybright et al., 2017), the current study examines how a youth leadership program using a youth-adult partnership (YAP) model contributed to skill development and career preparedness outcomes for military-connected youth. Further, this study examines longer-term outcomes of youth leadership program participation to illumine how programs that target military-connected youth contribute to positive trajectories toward adulthood (Arnold, 2018; Furstenberg et al., 2004). The following research questions were explored:

RQ1: How does the application of a youth-adult partnership model within a youth leadership program targeting military-connected influence interactions between youth and adults?

RQ2: How does participation in a youth leadership program targeting military-connected youth influence skill development among youth and adults?

RQ3: How does participation in a youth leadership program targeting military-connected youth influence future career preparedness and success among youth and adults?

Literature Review

Military-Connected Youth

Approximately 1.6 million military dependents are under age 20 (or 22 if enrolled as full-time students) across Active Duty, Selected Reserves, and the National Guard units (United States Department of Defense, 2017). Numerous family stressors are associated with deployment and reintegration following deployment (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011). The indirect effects of military service can create long-term issues for non-deployed family members and their dependent children (Ormeno et al., 2020; Ruscio et al., 2002). As military-connected youth reach adolescence, they become increasingly aware of the dangers associated with deployment (Bello-Utu & DeSocio, 2015; Huebner & Mancini, 2005); subsequently, this age group is at increased risk for internalizing problems, stress-related disorders, sleep issues, and academic struggles (Chandra et al., 2011). Many military-connected youth experience multiple relocations due to deployments, and such relocations can lead to military-connected youth feeling disconnected from their peers, discouraged at school, and angry towards their parents (Ormeno et al., 2020).

Youth Development Programs Targeting Military-Connected Youth

The PYD perspective explains how youth thrive and demonstrate healthy functioning when environmental resources accompany their strengths (Easterbrooks et al., 2013). Ginsburg and Jablow (2020) expanded on the well-developed and extensively researched Five Cs model of PYD (i.e., competence, confidence, connection, character, contribution; Lerner et al., 2021) to develop the Seven Cs model as a framework for youth resilience. Resilience is conceptualized as “sustained competence or positive adjustment in the face of adversity” (Easterbrooks et al., 2013, p. 100) resulting from interactions between a person and their environment. During adolescence, resilience may be influenced by factors across a young person's ecological and sociocultural systems (Masten, 2019). The Seven Cs model addresses resilience by adding two additional concepts—coping and control—to the Five Cs model of PYD (Ginsburg & Jablow, 2020). Coping and control are helpful in identifying resilience strengths and weaknesses in youth (Barger et al., 2017). Effective youth development programs that promote resilience often attempt to positively influence at least one factor within the Seven Cs framework (Mahmoud & Rothenberger, 2019). Additionally, because the Seven Cs are related, positively impacting one aspect typically results in positive change in others (Ginsburg & Jablow, 2020). For military-connected youth to thrive, youth development programs seek to provide opportunities to enhance and support the Seven Cs (Kudler & Porter, 2013) as well as build resiliency (Huebner & Mancini, 2005). In the current study, the Seven Cs framework was embedded within Boys and Girls Clubs of America’s (BGCA's) program theory for serving military-connected youth through the Military Teen Ambassador (MTA) program.

OST programs intentionally designed to address the needs of military-connected youth provide opportunities for stability and elicit positive outcomes (e.g., feelings of comfort, happiness, safety, and parental dependability; Richardson et al., 2016), with the most effective programs addressing both internal and external stressors by promoting internal (i.e., resilience) and interpersonal (i.e., connectedness) assets (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011; Jordan, 2021). Previous studies of military-connected youth targeted potential negative developmental and family outcomes affiliated with the military lifestyle (see Easterbrooks et al., 2013); however, limited literature exists on the effectiveness and benefits of programs designed to serve military-connected youth. Few studies have examined how youth-serving programs can assist military-connected youth in developing coping strategies, life skills, and social supports (Jordan, 2021; Parry et al., 2023; Weston et al., 2021).

Youth-Adult Partnerships

This study was informed by a YAP framework (Camino, 2000; Zeldin et al., 2013). YAPs reflect the idea that (1) cooperative efforts include both youth and adults (Camino, 2000; Zeldin et al., 2013) and (2) encourage the building of instrumental relationships among youth and adults (Weybright et al., 2017; Zeldin et al., 2016). YAPs differ from parent-child, student-teacher, and mentoring relationships because they require mutual teaching and learning between both parties (Camino, 2000). When utilized effectively, YAPs emphasize the necessity of youth power in decision-making (Camino, 2000; Weybright et al., 2017) and encourage collaborative action between youth and adults in community spaces (Camino, 2000; Zeldin et al., 2013).

Not only has YAP involvement been linked to increased program motivation (Akiva et al., 2014) and higher program quality (Krauss et al., 2014), such relationships between youth and adults positively impact social skills (Akiva et al., 2014) and identity development (Ramey et al., 2017). Youth who engage in YAPs experience greater empowerment while developing problem-solving and decision-making skills (Akiva et al., 2014; Krauss et al., 2014). Successful YAPs within youth-serving organizations must be established within the program structure and implemented through curriculum and staff training (Weybright et al., 2017). In the current study, a YAP model was a defining feature of the MTA Steering Committee.

Method

Institutional Review Board Approval

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Clemson University. All participants provided consent.

Study Site

For more than two decades, BGCA has partnered with the U.S. Armed Forces to provide programs and services to youth and military families. One such program is BGCA Military Teen Ambassadors (MTA)—a centralized training for military youth and their advisors from U.S. military installations. The training targets the development of life skills and leadership capabilities of military teens, focusing on resiliency and reintegration of the family following deployment. Previous studies have examined outcomes associated with BGCA's MTA program (Parry et al., 2023; Weston et al., 2021). This research suggests that BGCA's use of the Seven Cs of Resiliency within the MTA program has been associated with significant increases in program participants’ knowledge of resiliency and reintegration (Weston et al., 2021). Furthermore, participants also demonstrated high levels of teamwork, communication and leadership skills, and knowledge of community needs (Parry et al., 2023; Weston et al., 2021).

A novel dimension of the MTA program is the integration of a Steering Committee comprised of Teens and Adult Advisors, who work cooperatively to plan, implement, and evaluate the MTA program. A central feature of the MTA program and the MTA Steering Committee is fostering youth-adult partnerships (Liang et al., 2013). Both the MTA program and the MTA Steering Committee provide opportunities for teens to build relationships with their Adult Advisors as mentors that support their success. The current study builds on previous work by examining how an intentional youth leadership structure (i.e., the Steering Committee) built on a PVD framework can support developmental outcomes.

Design and Participants

A mixed-methods survey was used to evaluate immediate and long-term outcomes associated with MTA Steering Committee participation. This design involved administering a survey that generated cross-sectional quantitative and qualitative data.

The population for this study included 66 Teens and Adult Advisors, both current and alumni participants, who had been involved in the MTA Steering Committee since 2014. Participants were recruited into the study in cooperation with BGCA administrators. Purposeful sampling based on role (i.e., Teen or Adult Advisor) and Steering Committee experience (i.e., from 1 year to 7 years) was used to promote sample diversity. This approach identified a sample of 39 youth and adults involved in the MTA Steering Committee, and all agreed to participate in the study for a response rate of 59%.

Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected in 2021 through an online Qualtrics survey. To ensure the confidentiality of military-connected youth and adult advisors participating in the survey, we implemented rigorous data protection measures. Personal information and survey responses were encrypted to prevent misuse of sensitive data. Secure data storage protocols were employed using secure servers. These measures were designed to minimize potential risks and protect the integrity of the research data.

Materials and Measures

The survey consisted of adapted standardized scales, developed items, and open-ended questions appropriate for the study research questions.

MTA Steering Committee Service Experience. Participants were asked to provide information regarding their experience with the BCGA MTA Steering Committee. Previous experience was measured via questions regarding whether participants were currently members, how long participants had been members, the years they have served, and their roles on the MTA Steering Committee.

Youth-Adult Partnerships. To measure youth-adult partnerships, nine items were utilized from the YAP scale (Krauss et al., 2014) and its two subscales measuring Youth Voice in Decision Making (YVDM) and Supportive Adult Relationships (SAR) (Krauss et al., 2014). These subscales assess “youth's actual experiences with active decision-making in programmatic contexts” (Krauss et al., 2014, p. 1555) and “relationships that exist between youth and non-familial adults within the context of programmatic and community settings” (Krauss et al., 2014, p. 1555). Participants were asked to consider their experience in the Teen Ambassadors program and rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements on a scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree. Examples of items included, “Youth and adults trust each other in this program” and “I have a say in planning programs in this program.” Reliabilities for the overall scale, YVDM subscale, and SAR subscale were all high ( α = . 81, .85, and .82, respectively).

Public Speaking/Leadership. The 8-item Leadership Competence subscale of the Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth (SCS-Y) (Peterson et al., 2011) measured public speaking and leadership skills. On a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree, participants were asked to rate ten items targeting leadership opportunities and speaking in front of a group. Scale items included, “I find it very easy to talk in front of a group” and “I would rather have a leadership role when I'm involved in a project.” Reliability for the public speaking scale was high ( α = . 85). Reliability for the leadership scale was acceptable ( α = . 69).

Organizational Skills. The 10-item organized actions subscale of the Children's Organizational Skills Scale (Molitor et al., 2017) was used to measure organizational skills. Participants rated items on a 1–4 scale, from 1 = Hardly ever or never to 4= Just about all the time. Items were rephrased for self-reporting. Reliability for the adapted scale was high ( α = . 82).

Teamwork. Teamwork was assessed using the 3-item Teamwork subscale from the Youth Civic and Character Measures Toolkit (Syvertsen et al., 2015). Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with three items on a scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree regarding teamwork. Sample statements included, “I am good at working together with other group members” and “When I work with others, I think about what is best for my team.” Reliability for the scale was satisfactory ( α = . 75).

Responsibility. Responsibility was assessed using the three-item Responsibility subscale from the Youth Civic and Character Measures Toolkit (Syvertsen et al., 2015). When considering responsibility, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with three items on a scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree. An example item included, “If I do something wrong, I take responsibility for my actions.” Reliability for the scale was acceptable ( α = . 70).

Self-Motivation/Goal Setting. This eight-item measure was informed by the Entrepreneurship Intentional Self-Regulation (EISR) scale (Weiner et al., 2011) to measure how participants approach and accomplish goals in life. Participants rated how often eight statements centered on self-motivation and goal setting were true for them, using a scale of 1 = Almost never to 5 = Almost always. Some items include, “I select challenging goals” and “I devote as much time and energy as needed to complete a task.” Reliability for the scale was high ( α = . 87).

Career Preparedness. The twelve-item Career-Adaptabilities Scale Short Form (Maggiori et al., 2017) was used to measure growth in career competencies. The overall composite and four subscales were calculated for concern, control, curiosity, and confidence. Reliabilities for the overall scale and the concern, control, curiosity, and confidence subscales ranged from acceptable to high ( α = . 89, .89, .84, .65, and .73, respectively).

Open-Ended Questions

In addition to the survey scales, seven open-ended questions were included in the survey to allow participants to provide additional information about the possible influence of MTA Steering Committee participation. Examples of these open-ended questions included, “How, if at all, did involvement in the BGCA MTA Steering Committee help you learn how to work effectively with adults to achieve the goals of the Steering Committee?” and “If you had to describe for a friend how serving on the BGCA MTA Steering Committee impacted (or did not impact) your future college or career interest or success, what would you tell them?”

Data Analysis

Quantitative data associated with the three research questions from the quantitative scales and descriptive questions were analyzed using SPSS version 28. Prior to data analysis, data screening examined outliers, normality, and missingness. Frequencies and boxplots were examined to identify data irregularities. A Missing Values Analysis identified 0–2.5% missing data in the target variables, which was considered acceptable based on the literature (Graham, 2009). Due to the small sample size, limited missing data, and negatively skewed responses, non-parametric statistics were used. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted for all comparisons (e.g., skill composite scores between teen and adult advisors, and skill composite scores based on years serving on the MTA Steering Committee). The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test of rank means is appropriate when comparing differences between independent groups when the dependent variable is either ordinal or continuous and the data are not normally distributed (Field, 2013).

Qualitative data associated with the three research questions from the open-ended responses on the survey were analyzed using directed content analysis, in which the goal was to systematically code the data to identify patterns in the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The coding process was directed in that it was guided by prior research on military youth leadership programs (Weston et al., 2021) and youth-adult partnerships (Weybright et al., 2017), as well as terms used within the MTA program (e.g., resilience, reintegration). One research team member completed coding and category development. Then an audit of the qualitative analyses and interpretations was completed by an external researcher familiar with the project but not involved in the initial development of the open-ended questions or the coding process (Cutcliffe & McKenna, 2004). The audit process affirmed the coder's interpretations reflected the data and did not reveal conflicting interpretations. Categories that resulted from this coding and audit process included skill building, youth-adult partnerships, supportive relationships, youth involvement, social/cultural competence, professionalism, programming, and safety.

Results

Demographics and other descriptive data were collected for all participants (see Table 1). The sample (N = 39) consisted of 19 Teen members, 19 Adult Advisors, and 1 “Lead Advisor coordinator.” Most respondents were female (53.8%), and the remainder were male (25.6%) or did not answer the question (20.5%). Participants ranged from 17 to 69 years old across all MTA Steering Committee members. Multiple ethnic/racial groups were represented, with most respondents identifying themselves as White (28.2%), Black/African American (20.5%), or Hispanic/Latino (15.4%). The largest proportion of respondents reported that this was their first year serving on the Committee (48.7%), while 33.3% had two years of experience, and 17.9% had three or more years of experience serving on the Committee.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics.

	n	%
Gender
Female	21	53.8%
Male	10	25.6%
No response	8	20.6%
TOTAL	39	100.0%
Age
17–21	11	28%
22–29	6	15.4%
30–39	7	18%
40–49	3	7.8%
50 or older	2	5.2%
No response	10	25.6%
TOTAL	39	100.0%
Race
Asian	2	5.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native	1	2.6%
Black or African American	8	20.5%
White	11	28.2%
Two or more races	2	5.1%
Hispanic or Latina/Latino/Latinx	6	15.4%
No response	9	23.1%
TOTAL	39	100.0%
Steering Committee Experience
First year	19	48.7%
2 years	13	33.1%
3 or more years	7	17.9%
TOTAL	39	100.0%

Youth-Adult Partnerships

The first research question (RQ1) was, “How does the application of the youth-adult partnership model within a military youth leadership program influence interactions between youth and adults?” Participants reported on the quality of the youth-adult partnerships developed within the MTA Steering Committee between Teens and Adult Advisors. Overall, both teens and adult advisors reported high levels of support and allowance for youth voice (See Table 2). Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to compare YAP scores between youth and adult participants. Although adult participants reported higher levels of overall youth-adult partnerships than youth, support, and allowance for youth voice, these differences were not statistically significant.

Table 2.

Mean Comparisons in Perceived Youth-Adult Partnerships Between Teen and Adult Advisor Steering Committee Members.

	Youth-Adult Partnership (Composite)		Supportive Adult Relationships		Youth Voice in Decision-Making
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Teens	4.72	0.33	4.67	0.45	4.78	0.42
Adult Advisors	4.89	0.21	4.88	0.20	4.91	0.29

Respondents also answered the following open-ended question about their youth-adult interactions, “How, if at all, did involvement in the MTA Steering Committee help you learn how to work effectively with adults to achieve the goals of the Steering Committee?” Based on participants’ responses, Teens and Adult advisors benefited from the YAP model used during the MTA Steering Committee. A critical dimension of a successful YAP was the development of supportive relationships between youth and adults, featuring the provision of authentic friendship and guidance to one another. Specific elements within the MTA Steering Committee were also important for facilitating YAPs, including mutual respect and accountability. Most of all, youth expressed that they were given the opportunity to have meaningful, authentic voice and involvement in decision-making (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Youth Skills in the Context of Effective Youth-Adult Partnerships.

Category	Definition	Representative Quotes
Skill-building	Engagement in activities that develop leadership and life skills	“This program taught me life skills to use in the real world such as time management, money management and implanting the base pillars of character throughout the entire experience…”“[The Steering Committee] gave me the opportunity to work on my communication and collaboration skills that later helped me in my job…”
Accountability and respect	Shared leadership between youth and adults, including elements such as accountability and mutual respect.	“When working with the adult advisors, I was always encouraged to share my ideas, and even encouraged to take the lead at times with my fellow teen ambassadors.” “…working with BCGA MTA felt like an even share of power in which we were held accountable by each other.”
Supportive relationships	Opportunity for friendship and guidance from peers and adults that provide social support	“The steering committee provides support, guidance and oversight of progress. Members do not usually work on their projects themselves.” “I liked working with adults that wanted to see me succeed and to help me grow in areas of my life.”
Youth involvement	Opportunity for meaningful and authentic involvement of youth, including youth voice and advocacy	“When working with the adult advisors, I was always encouraged to share my ideas, and even encouraged to take the lead at times with my fellow teen ambassadors” “I learned how to…be an advocate for myself and others…”
Social/Cultural competence	Learning about and understanding others different than oneself	“I was able to learn about other people's cultures and learn where people come from all around the world…”

Respondents also identified skills they developed because of the successful application of a YAP model within the MTA Steering Committee. This skill growth was associated with communication, program planning, time management, and goal setting. Respondents also shared how they became more socially and culturally competent through their work with peers and adults in the MTA Steering Committee.

Youth and Adult Skill Development

The second research question (RQ2) was, “How does participation in a military youth leadership program influence skill development among youth and adults?” The first step in exploring this question was determining whether skill growth was reported (i.e., what skills were impacted). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with specific statements related to whether or not serving on the MTA Steering Committee impacted their skills in areas that included public speaking, organization skills, leadership, teamwork, responsibility, and self-motivation/goal setting (see Table 4). Most Teens and Adult Advisors reported high levels of each outcome. Therefore, to account for the skewed distribution of these scores, Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare skill composite scores between Teens and Adult Advisor participants. No statistically significant differences were found.

Table 4.

Mean Comparisons in Perceived Skills Between Teen and Adult Advisor Steering Committee Members.

	Public Speaking		Organization Skills		Leadership		Teamwork		Responsibility		Goal Setting
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Teens	4.15	0.67	3.05	0.45	4.18	0.47	4.77	0.40	4.75	0.35	4.45	0.45
Adult Advisors	4.18	0.70	3.37	0.44	4.12	0.44	4.78	0.38	4.76	0.36	4.61	0.41

The influence of years of experience on the Steering Committee on skill growth was also examined. Most participants reported high levels of each of the outcomes regardless of their year on the Committee. Therefore, to account for the skewed distribution of these scores, Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare skill composite scores between participants based on years on the Committee (i.e., first year compared with more than one year). Across the outcomes, the only statistically significant difference was associated with reported growth in organization skills, with participants for whom this was their first year on the committee reporting lower organization skills than members who had been on the committee for two or more years (U = 75.5, p = .006).

The second step in addressing this question was determining what programmatic factors contributed to skill growth (i.e., how skills were impacted). Survey respondents were asked open-ended questions about how MTA Steering Committee participation impacted skill growth. Responses suggested various programmatic factors were important in supporting skill growth. First, relationship-building opportunities between Teens and Adult Advisors allowed them to establish a strong foundation representing an intentional partnership focused on achieving shared goals (i.e., the outcomes of the MTA program). Relationship-building was tied to an organizational culture that stressed accountability and professionalism. Second, Teens and Adult Advisors had access to diverse leadership opportunities, including leading committees and being responsible for key events and tasks. Third, Teens and Adult Advisors had opportunities to practice skills, such as creating schedules and calendars to organize their work (see Table 6).

Table 5.

Mean Comparisons in Perceived Career Preparedness Based on Role (Teens; Adult Advisors) and Years of MTA Experience (First Year; Two or More Years).

	Career Preparedness		Career Concern		Career Control		Career Curiosity		Career Confidence
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Teens	4.51	0.38	4.53	0.66	4.56	0.47	4.53	0.48	4.42	0.54
Adult Advisors	4.35	0.54	4.20	0.77	4.35	0.72	4.37	0.60	4.46	0.54
First Year	4.31	0.45	4.31	0.69	4.30	0.56	4.31	0.49	4.31	0.43
Two or More Years	4.57	0.47	4.44	0.79	4.63*	0.63	4.58	0.58	4.63*	0.54

*p < .05.

Table 6.

Open-Ended Responses Related to Future College or Career Success.

Category	Definition	Representative Quotes
Career development	Enhancing one’s awareness of, interest in, and aspirations for a particular career or career path	“MTA was a real solidifying of the career path I have chosen. It was everything I signed up to do when I started working with military youth.”“It opened my eyes to the different ways occupations can contribute to social justice…”
Skills application	Application of MTA Steering Committee lessons to other settings (e.g., college and workplace)	“…being on the steering committee encouraged me to step out of my comfort zone…with my later choices in life…the public speaking and leadership aspect of being on the Committee helped me throughout my college career.” “…I went to school to be a nursing’s assistant to take care and advocate for the people who couldn’t advocate for themselves anymore. BGCA taught me how to do just that, to advocate.”
Networking and resume-building	Building experiences and social connections that support career and life success	“…it prepared me for a career in politics through developing my networking skills…”“This impacted my career success by giving me the opportunities to network…”“Not only is it a great bullet point on your resume, but you will have practical experience working with a diverse group across multiple time zones to create a world-class outcome.”
Confidence	Belief in one’s own abilities	“I noticed my success comes from my voice, my confidence, and myself, not a piece of paper or a transcript.”“It has made me more confident in myself and has made me a better professional.”

Career Preparedness

The third research question (RQ3) was, “How does participation in a military youth leadership program influence career preparedness among youth and adults?” Participants were asked to what extent involvement in the MTA Steering Committee helped them develop capacities and behaviors linked to career preparedness. Measuring career preparedness provided an overall score on these capacities as well as four subscale scores: career concern, career control, career curiosity, and career confidence (see Table 5). Overall, both Teens and Adult Advisors reported high levels of career capacities. To account for the skewed distribution of these scores, Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare skill composite scores between Teens and Adult Advisors. There were no statistically significant differences between Teens and Adult Advisors on the career preparedness outcomes.

Career preparedness was also assessed according to years of MTA experience. Participants reported high levels of each of the outcomes regardless of their year on the MTA Steering Committee. Therefore, to account for the skewed distribution of these scores, Mann-Whitney U tests compared career preparedness scores between members who reported this was their first year on the committee versus those who had been on the committee for two or more years. Participants for whom this was their first year on the MTA Steering Committee reported lower career control and career confidence scores than members who had been on the Committee for two or more years (U = 83.0, p = .006, and U = 89.5, p = .050; Table 5).

The possible influence of MTA Steering Committee participation on career and college interest or success was also explored through open-ended questions. Four emergent themes were identified in the responses of Teens and Adult Advisors (see Table 6). One, involvement in the committee enhanced teen and adult awareness of, interest in, and aspiration for a specific career path. Two, committee participation allowed Teens and Adults to apply skills they learned to other situations, such as employment or college-related contexts. Three, Teens strengthened their professional networks and resumes, which prepared them to work collaboratively and build social systems that could be leveraged in the future. Four, MTA Steering Committee participation increased Teens’ confidence in their abilities, which helped them succeed in professional workplace settings.

Discussion

This study examined how participation in the BGCA MTA Steering Committee, as a partnership between Teens and Adult Advisors working toward shared program goals, influenced skill development and career preparedness outcomes for military-connected youth who were members of the committee. Skill development growth was measured for public speaking, organizational skills, leadership, teamwork, responsibility, and goal setting. Teen and Adult Advisor participation in the Steering Committee was associated with high levels in all targeted skill areas, which supports previous studies of youth leadership program outcomes (De Vera et al., 2016; Larson et al., 2006; Weston et al., 2021). Participating in the MTA Steering Committee for two or more years resulted in statistically significant growth in organizational skills when compared to participating in the committee for the first time. This finding aligns with the program model and may reflect a dosage effect, with more exposure to the program resulting in more growth in that outcome (Falkenström et al., 2016; Kopta, 2003; Kopta et al., 1994). In line with evaluations of youth and young adult leadership programs in other settings (De Vera et al., 2016; Silliman et al., 2020), organizational skills are a key competency developed through the MTA Steering Committee. Given that organization is considered a critical 21st century skill relevant across a variety of education and employment settings (Partnership for twenty-first Century Skills, 2019), our findings suggest MTA Steering Committee can play an important role in college and career preparedness.

Skill development was closely tied to programmatic factors, including supportive Teen and Adult Advisor relationships, opportunities to practice and apply skills, and Teens and Adult Advisors being accountable to one another. Mutual collaboration and respect are evident in these relationships and outlined in the YAP framework. Supportive relationships and the opportunity to learn and practice new skills are essential elements of a PYD setting, and the study findings provide evidence supporting the BGCA MTA Steering Committee as a setting that promotes PYD (Arnold & Silliman, 2017) and, more broadly, the effectiveness of experiential-based programs for promoting PYD (Newman et al., 2017; Norton et al., 2023). The opportunity to practice new skills is also critical for learning, as practice is an essential ingredient in experiential learning models (Kolb, 2015; Newman et al., 2017). Additionally, these programmatic factors have been shown to assist military-connected youth in managing military life stressors (Jordan, 2021; Mmari et al., 2010) and influence increased happiness and comfort (Richardson et al., 2016).

This study also evaluated whether involvement in the MTA Steering Committee built capacities and behaviors linked to college and career preparedness. Although there were no statistically significant differences between Steering Committee participants on the career preparedness scale, responses to the open-ended questions were more revealing. Open-ended responses suggested that committee participation positively influenced college and career success by increasing members’ career awareness and interest, increasing their confidence in their ability to be successful in college or a future career, by giving them skills that could be applied to a college or career, by allowing them to build a network and social connections, and by providing them with resume-building experiences through the Steering Committee.

An important dimension of this study was assessing the quality of YAPs among members of the MTA Steering Committee. Although Adult Advisors reported higher levels of overall YAPs on the survey scale items for support and allowance for youth voice, these differences were not statistically significant. However, the open-ended responses provide a more nuanced perspective, suggesting that teens benefitted greatly from adult-youth partnerships, as those relationships enabled them to embrace leadership roles, engage in hands-on learning experiences, learning from Adult Advisors’ who role modeled positive behaviors and attitudes.

The importance of shared accountability, reflective of the YAP, was a novel emergent finding in this study. Teens and Adult Advisors holding each other accountable for completing assigned work tasks was an impactful element of the Steering Committee culture. While accountability as a dimension of YAPs has not been a topic heavily discussed within the YAP literature, accountability has been identified as a critical characteristic of high-functioning teams (Lencioni, 2012) and provides further evidence of the effectiveness of the Steering Committee as a model for providing Teens and Adult Advisors with meaningful partnership opportunities. Furthermore, exposure to these effective, work-related partnerships with adults may be a programmatic feature that promotes college/ career preparedness that was not captured in the quantitative measurement.

Implications for Practice

Youth-serving organizations can benefit from this study by adding a YAP model as a dimension of existing or future youth leadership programs. The current study also demonstrated the effectiveness of YAPs for serving military-connected youth. Adult Advisors served as non-parent adult role models and mentors, which were important for youth with limited access to one or more parents due to deployment (Huebner et al., 2007). Youth organizations could bolster opportunities to practice skills as this study supports the extensive literature supporting experiential learning as a dimension of youth learning and training programs (Galeotti, 2015; Hamilton, 1980; Kolb, 2014).

Implications for Research

Data in this study were cross-sectional and only collected following the completion of the program. Therefore, change in reported skills growth could not be measured. Rather, the current study focused on possible differences between Teen and Adult Advisor skills and possible differences based on years of experience serving on the Steering Committee. Future studies could use different research designs (i.e., pre/post and retrospective pre-test designs) to better assess skill development over time. In addition, research supporting the implementation of youth leadership programs is needed (Bean et al., 2017). Such studies would be process evaluations using implementation science to assess dimensions including participant engagement, instructor effectiveness, fidelity to the curriculum, program quality, and program adaptation (Cumming et al., 2022; Duerden & Witt, 2012; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Tidmarsh et al., 2022). The first step towards implementation studies of youth leadership programs like the one examined in the current study is program implementation guide development to foster adherence to program design.

Limitations

Some study limitations are important to consider. First, data analyzed for this study were self-reported by current and former Teen and Adult Advisors of the Steering Committee. In some cases, these responses reflected retrospective evaluations of skill growth and program impacts on outcomes. As such, the responses are susceptible to method bias, including response bias for self-presentation or recall gaps (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Future mixed-methods studies and those that include data collected from other sources (e.g., parents of teens involved in the Steering Committee, employers of current or past Steering Committee members) would be useful for confirming findings in the present study. Second, the sample size in the current study was relatively small, and the findings should be interpreted with caution. However, a moderately high response rate was achieved, and the data were highly representative of the population, with Steering Committee members representing multiple cohorts to provide a longitudinal perspective.

Conclusions

Previous research by Weston et al. (2021) suggested the efficacy of the BGCA MTA program for building leadership skills in military-connected youth, along with enhancing knowledge of resiliency and reintegration among those youth. The current study builds on that work by providing support for the positive impact of the MTA Steering Committee—the YAP responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating the MTA program—in Teens and Adult Advisors providing that leadership. Together, these studies offer strong evidence supporting BGCA's efforts to develop a youth leadership program grounded in PYD principles, founded on a collaborative, effective YAP model, and intentional in producing enhancements to leadership and career development skills.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the youth and adult advisors who participated in this study for their valuable contributions to this research.

Data Availability Statement

Data for this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval,Content to Participate,and Consent to Publication

This project was reviewed and approved by Clemson University's Institutional Review Board (#IRB2021–035493–02). All participants provided consent to participate and consent for publication.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (grant number 2020000550).

ORCID iD

Barry A. Garst

Author Biographies

Barry A. Garst, PhD, is a professor of Youth Development Leadership and Coordinator of Youth Development Programs at Clemson University.

Leslie E. Heffington is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at Clemson University.

Edmond P. Bowers, PhD, is a professor in Youth Development Leadership and Director of Assessment and Engagement at Clemson University.

Benjamin J. Parry, PhD is a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley.

William H. Quinn, PhD, is a professor Emeritus of Youth Development Leadership at Clemson University.

Maira Patino, PhD is a student at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

References

Akiva

Cortina

K. S.

Smith

(2014). Involving youth in program decision-making: How common and what might it do for youth? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(11), 1844–1860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0183-y

Arnold

M. E.

(2018). From context to outcomes: A thriving model for 4-H youth development programs. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 6(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.54718/NBNL5438

Arnold

M. E.

Silliman

(2017). From theory to practice: A critical review of positive youth development program frameworks. Journal of Youth Development, 12(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2017.17

Bang

Won

Park

(2020). School engagement, self-esteem, and depression of adolescents: The role of sport participation and volunteering activity and gender differences. Children and Youth Services Review, 113, 105012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105012

Barger

Vitale

Gaughan

J. P.

Feldman-Winter

(2017). Measuring resilience in the adolescent population: A succinct tool for outpatient adolescent health. The Journal of Pediatrics, 189, 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.06.030

Barr

Birmingham

Fornal

Klein

Piha

(2006). Three high school after-school initiatives: Lessons learned. New Directions for Youth Development, 2006(111), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.183

Bean

Harlow

Kendellen

(2017). Strategies for fostering basic psychological needs support in high quality youth leadership programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 61, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.12.003

Bello-Utu

C. F.

DeSocio

J. E.

(2015). Military deployment and reintegration: A systematic review of child coping. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 28(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12099

Bowers

E. P.

Johnson

S. K.

Warren

D. J.

Tirrell

J. M.

Lerner

J. V.

(2015). Youth–adult relationships and positive youth development. In In promoting positive youth development (pp. 97–120). Springer.

10.

Camino

L. A.

(2000). Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and research. Applied Developmental Science, 4(S1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS04Suppl_2

11.

Chandra

Burns

R. M.

Tanielian

Jaycox

L. H.

(2011). Understanding the deployment experience for children and youth from military families. In In risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 175–192). Springer.

12.

Cumming

Clarke

F. J.

Holland

Parry

B. J.

Quinton

M. L.

Cooley

S. J.

(2022). A feasibility study of the my strengths training for life™ (MST4Life™) program for young people experiencing homelessness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063320

13.

Cutcliffe

J. R.

McKenna

H. P.

(2004). Expert qualitative researchers and the use of audit trails. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02874.x

14.

De Vera

M. J.

Corpus

J. E. R.

Ramos

D. D. P.

(2016). Towards understanding a multi-stakeholder approach in a youth leadership development program. International Journal of Public Leadership, 12(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-12-2015-0029

15.

Dimitrova

Wiium

(2021). Handbook of positive youth development: Advancing the next generation of research, policy and practice in global contexts. In Handbook of positive youth development (pp. 3–16). Springer.

16.

Duerden

M. D.

Witt

P. A.

(2012). Assessing program implementation: What it is, why it's important, and how to do it. Journal of Extension, 50(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.01.05

17.

Durlak

J. A.

DuPre

E. P.

(2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0

18.

Durlak

J. A.

Mahoney

J. L.

Bohnert

A. M.

Parente

M. E.

(2010). Developing and improving after-school programs to enhance youth’s personal growth and adjustment: A special issue of AJCP. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9298-9

19.

Easterbrooks

M. A.

Ginsburg

Lerner

R. M.

(2013). Resilience among military youth. The Future of Children, 23, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0014

20.

Esposito-Smythers

Wolff

Lemmon

K. M.

Bodzy

Swenson

R. R.

Spirito

(2011). Military youth and the deployment cycle: Emotional health consequences and recommendations for intervention. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024534

21.

Falkenström

Josefsson

Berggren

Holmqvist

(2016). How much therapy is enough? Comparing dose-effect and good-enough models in two different settings. Psychotherapy, 53(1), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000039

22.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.

23.

Fukkink

Boogaard

(2020). Pedagogical quality of after-school care: Relaxation and/or enrichment? Children and Youth Services Review, 112, 104903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104903

24.

Furstenberg

F. F.

Kennedy

McCloyd

V. G.

Rumbaut

R. G.

Settersten

R. A.

(2004). Becoming an adult: The changing nature of early adulthood. Contexts, 3(3), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2004.3.3.33

25.

Galeotti

(2015). Empowering pre-adolescent girls: Girls on the run experiential learning program exploratory study. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825915603578

26.

Ginsburg

K. R.

Jablow

M. M.

(2020). Building resilience in children and teens: Giving kids roots and wings (4th ed.). American Academy of Pediatrics.

27.

Graham

J. W.

(2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530

28.

Grogan

K. E.

Henrich

C. C.

Malikina

M. V.

(2014). Student engagement in after-school programs, academic skills, and social competence among elementary school students. Child Development Research, 2014, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/498506

29.

Hamilton

S. F.

(1980). Experiential learning programs for youth. American Journal of Education, 88(2), 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1086/443514

30.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

31.

Huebner

A. J.

Mancini

J. A.

(2005). Adjustments among adolescents in military families when a parent is deployed. Final Report to the Military Family Research Institute and Department of Defense Quality of Life Office, 1–50.

32.

Huebner

A. J.

Mancini

J. A.

Wilcox

R. M.

Grass

S. R.

Grass

G. A.

(2007). Parental deployment and youth in military families: Exploring uncertainty and ambiguous loss. Family Relations, 56(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00445.x

33.

Jordan

D. J.

(2021). Impacts of a resident camp experience on the lives of military-connected youth. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 40(2), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2021-10619

34.

Kolb

D. A.

(2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. F.T. press.

35.

Kolb

(2015). The process of experience learning. In Kolb

(Ed.), Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed., pp. 31–64). Pearson Education, Inc.

36.

Kopta

S. M.

(2003). The dose–effect relationship in psychotherapy: A defining achievement for Dr. Kenneth Howard. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(7), 727–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10167

37.

Kopta

S. M.

Howard

K. I.

Lowry

J. L.

Beutler

L. E.

(1994). Patterns of symptomatic recovery in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 1009–1016. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.5.1009

38.

Krauss

S. E.

Collura

Zeldin

Ortega

Abdullah

Sulaiman

A. H.

(2014). Youth–adult partnership: Exploring contributions to empowerment, agency and community connections in Malaysian youth programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(9), 1550–1562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0027-1

39.

Kudler

Porter

R. I.

(2013). Building communities of care for military children and families. The Future of Children, 23, 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0019

40.

Larson

R. W.

Hansen

D. M.

Moneta

(2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849

41.

Lencioni

(2012). The five dysfunctions of a team. Pfeiffer, a Wiley Imprint.

42.

Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Murry

V. M.

Smith

E. P.

Bowers

E. P.

Geldhof

G. J.

Buckingham

M. H.

(2021). Positive youth development in 2020: Theory, research, programs, and the promotion of social justice. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1114–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12609

43.

Julian

M. M.

(2012). Developmental relationships as the active ingredient: A unifying working hypothesis of “what works” across intervention settings. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01151.x

44.

Liang

Spencer

West

Rappaport

(2013). Expanding the reach of youth mentoring: Partnering with youth for personal growth and social change. Journal of Adolescence, 36(2), 257–267.

45.

Maggiori

Rossier

Savickas

M. L.

(2017). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale-Short Form (CAAS-SF) construction and validation. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(2), 312–325.

46.

Mahmoud

N. N.

Rothenberger

(2019). From burnout to well-being: A focus on resilience. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, 32(06), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1692710

47.

Masten

A. S.

(2019). Resilience from a developmental systems perspective. World Psychiatry, 18(1), 101–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20591

48.

Mmari

K. N.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Sudhinaraset

Blum

(2010). Exploring the role of social connectedness among military youth: Perceptions from youth, parents, and school personnel. Child & Youth Care Forum, 39(5), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9109-3

49.

Molitor

S. J.

Langberg

J. M.

Evans

S. W.

Dvorsky

M. R.

Bourchtein

Eddy

L. D.

Oddo

L. E.

(2017). Evaluating the factor validity of the children’s organizational skills scale in youth with ADHD. School Mental Health, 9, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9205-0

50.

Newman

T. J.

Alvarez

M. A. G.

Kim

(2017). An experiential approach to sport for youth development. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(3), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825917696833

51.

Norton

C. L.

Tucker

A. R.

Rupe

Riley

(2023). Positive youth development and adventure therapy with underserved youth: An evaluation of the Chicago voyagers program. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 15(4), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.18666/JOREL-2023-11703

52.

Ormeno

M. D.

Roh

Heller

Shields

Flores-Carrera

Greve

Hagan

Kostrubala

Onasanya

(2020). Special concerns in military families. Current Psychiatry Reports, 22(12), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01207-7

53.

Parry

Patino

Garst

Heffington

Bowers

(2023). Supporting military-connected teens to thrive: A qualitative evaluation of a military-based program from the perspective of teens and adult advisors. Applied Developmental Science, 28(4), 634–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2023.2265813

54.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Framework for 21^st century learning definitions. https://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_DefinitionsBFK.pdf.

55.

Peterson

N. A.

Peterson

C. H.

Agre

Christens

B. D.

Morton

C. M.

(2011). Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth in an urban community context. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(5), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20456

56.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

57.

Ramey

H. L.

Rose-Krasnor

Lawford

H. L.

(2017). Youth–adult partnerships and youth identity style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0474-6

58.

Richardson

E. W.

Mallette

J. K.

O’Neal

C. W.

Mancini

J. A.

(2016). Do youth development programs matter? An examination of transitions and well-being among military youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(6), 1765–1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0361-5

59.

Ruscio

A. M.

Weathers

F. W.

King

L. A.

King

D. W.

(2002). Male war-zone veterans’ perceived relationships with their children: The importance of emotional numbing. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(5), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020125006371

60.

Shinn

Yoshikawa

(eds) (2008). Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs. Oxford University Press.

61.

Silliman

Edwards

H. C.

Johnson

J. C.

(2020). Preparing capable youth workers: The project youth extension service approach. Journal of Youth Development, 15(1), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.824

62.

Sullivan

P. J.

Larson

R. W.

(2010). Connecting youth to high-resource adults: Lessons from effective youth programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(1), 99–123.

63.

Syvertsen

A. K.

Wray-Lake

Metzger

(2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Search Institute.

64.

Tidmarsh

Whiting

Thompson

J. L.

Cumming

(2022). Assessing the fidelity of delivery style of a mental skills training programme for young people experiencing homelessness. Evaluation and Program Planning, 94, 102150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102150

65.

Ungar

(2015). Practitioner review: diagnosing childhood resilience-a systemic approach to the diagnosis of adaptation in adverse social and physical ecologies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(1), 4–17.

66.

United States Department of Defense. (2017). 2017 Demographics: Profile of the military community. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2017-demographics-report.pdf

67.

Vandell

D. L.

Larson

R. W.

Mahoney

J. L.

Watts

T. W.

(2015). Children's organized activities. In Bornstein

M. H.

Leventhal

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes (pp. 305–344). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

68.

Weiner

Geldhof

Lerner

(2011). The entrepreneurship intentional self regulation questionnaire: Factorial and concurrent validation. Paper presented at the Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for the Study of Human Development, Providence, RI.

69.

Weston

K. L.

Garst

B. A.

Bowers

E. P.

Quinn

W. H.

(2021). Cultivating knowledge of resiliency and reintegration among military youth through a national youth leadership program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 86, 101915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101915

70.

Weybright

E. H.

Trauntvein

Deen

M. K.

(2017). It was like we were all equal": Maximizing youth development using youth-adult partnerships. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 35(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2017-V35-I1-7246

71.

M. V. B.

Deutsch

N. L.

(2021). Aligning social support to youth's developmental needs: The role of nonparental youth–adult relationships in early and late adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 25(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1548940

72.

Zeldin

Christens

B. D.

Powers

J. L.

(2013). The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9558-y

73.

Zeldin

Krauss

S. E.

Kim

Collura

Abdullah

(2016). Pathways to youth empowerment and community connectedness: A study of youth-adult partnership in Malaysian after-school, co-curricular programs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(8), 1638–1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0320-2