Need for Training

1. Youth-Adult PartnershipsA-C-CW Volunteer/Leader Training,Fall 2008Deborah Moore and Heidi Haugen

2. Need for Training Need emerged from several directions: • Complaints to office about 4-H meetings: • Adults taking over at federation meetings. • Club leaders not listening to youth, “shutting them down,” not taking their suggestions seriously. • Club adults prodding youth to say aloud what adults wanted. • Youth not taking responsibility for events. • Leadership and learning program outcomes research, a “natural” extension of positive youth development. • DMF call for PDCs in National Mission Mandate areas (from 2008 YOUth and U) • New leaders questions

3. Training Objectives Participants will: • Review PYD and understand how building relationships is key to youth’ development and civic engagement. • Learn basic principles of Youth-Adult Partnerships and how to apply them to a 4-H context (working with youth/adults, barriers & challenges, more resources). • Self assess current Y-AP practices (esp. youth roles). • Build/hone Y-AP skills via PDC activities and planning. • Learn how PDCs provide educational experiences for youth and adult leaders through workshops, trainings, and events. • Experience examples of short activities that are appropriate for PDC meetings. • Practice working with youth/adults.

4. Training Agenda • Introductions/Outline (Moore and Haugen) • Positive Youth Development • Youth Perception Continuum (Busting Stereotypes) • Y-AP Community Assessment • “Deal or No Deal” Game (Review) • Resources on Y-AP • Committee Purpose & Structure Overview • PDC Break Outs - Activity & Planning in Focus Areas for 2009 (with observer feedback) • Questions & Answers – Anything 4-H!

5. Y-AP Research Literature Pittman, K., Irby, M., Tolman, J., Yohalem, N., & Ferber, T. (2003).Preventing problems, promoting development, encouraging engagement: competing priorities or inseparable goals?. Based upon Pittman, K. & Irby, M. (1996). Preventing problems or promoting development? Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc. Konopka, G. (1973). Requirements for Healthy Development of Adolescent Youth, Adolescence, 8(31), 2-25. Pittman, K. & Wright, M. (1999). “A rationale for enhancing the role of the non-school voluntary sector in youth development.” Washington D.C.: Center for Youth Development and Policy Research. Hart, R. (1992).Children’s Participation from Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Baker, A.J. (2006).Why Involve Young People? From Youth Community Connections, March 2006. Partially adapted/excerpted from “At the Table: Making the Case for Youth in Decision-Making” (www.Youth.Activism.org). Akiva, T. (2005).The Participatory Learning Approach: Learning Methods. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Part of the High/Scope’s Youth Worker Methods Series.

6. Teaching Methods • Some PowerPoint slides (for two parts) • Mostly large group discussion • Walking to take a stand • Use of sticker dots to assess community • Game for Review • Hands-on Activity during PDC break-outs • Small group discussion/planning • Observer feedback • Simple Q&A

7. Teaching Materials and Resources • Event sign-in sheet, nametags • PowerPoint Overview files • Handouts: Overviews on Y-AP & PDCs, • Flip charts/paper, pens/pencils, sticker dots • PDC Activity materials: • SET (from Natl. Science Day): Diapers, measuring cups and spoons, paper cups, newspaper, baggies • Healthy Living (from JIFF): Pyramid picks game handout, index cards, pens/pencils • Citizenship (leadership activity from OMK): Hats, flip chart, markers, CWF brochures • PDC curricula (many sets for browsing, generating ideas), SET equipment if available (e.g. robots, GPS devices) • PDC sign-up sheet, • Door prizes (one per participant) and tickets

8. Evaluation(s) Evaluation 1 was a half sheet from the Youth Work Institute and included questions on Y-AP section: • Participant understanding/knowledge gains • Relevancy of content • Content’s potential application • Facilitator’s effectiveness • Learning needs met • Understand of the research Evaluation 2 was adapted from Karyn Santl’s judges training and included questions on PDC section: • Participant knowledge gains, information helpful • Instructor knowledge, preparation, ability to interest in participant learning • Workshop organization • Preparedness for and likelihood of using what learned in future

9. Evaluation Highlights Y-AP Section Evaluation (out of 4): • Mean agreement with knowledge increased: 3.61. • Agreement with statements on content relevance, 3.50; application, 3.58; facilitator effectiveness, 3.73; learning needs met, 3.75; understanding of the research, 3.58. PDC Section Evaluation (out of 5): • Substantial gains in knowledge: from 2.18 to 3.73. • Very satisfied w/organization & flow: 4.44. • And with instructors: preparedness (4.63), relating content to real life (4.63), getting participants involved (4.63), helping prepare to use materials (4.3), interest in helping participants learn (4.56). • Means score agreement on plan to make changes based on what was learned: 4.63. • Especially helpful was learning about YA-P, curricular resources, function and outline of PDCs. They would like more on dealing with adults who hinder youth involvement…

10. More Evaluation Highlights Participant Statements: • “It reconfirms some of my knowledge base and gives me new ideas to help me work with youth.” • “We are in the process of having our youth run more of our meetings. It gave me a great insight as to how the youth want to be approached or understood. Your part of not having to be perfect…it is better to learn something and grow than to complete the project.” • “(It’s) good to hear youth input—food for thought.” • “It helped me understand adult involvement in my 4-H club.” • “(As) A long-time educator, It is great to see such intense focus on youth/adult growth and relationships.” • “(It) taught me to think before I act towards my grandparents.” • “This was a lot of fun.” • “Much better than last year's (training)!”

12. Concluding Thoughts • Adults and youth like this focus – very well received. • Some of those who most “needed” this training did not come. We will need to do a lot of “desk-side training”—some of which will be “targeted.” • People are open to PDCs in National Mission Mandate areas. They also enjoy looking through curricula (= fertile soil for more training opportunities in this area). • People really like the opportunity to meet leaders from other counties. Recommended a “social” for volunteers. • Community assessment showed foci for future training. • Was a great opportunity to partner with the YWI, to extend the knowledge resources of the university to citizens of our state.