In Millennial Footsteps: California Social Movement Organizations for Generation Z

Abstract

This article highlights main themes that emerged from our panel featuring youth organizers and scholars of youth social movements in California. We focus on how organizations uplift youth leadership, foster queer inclusivity, build across racial difference, and cultivate “beloved community,” a concept popularized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Our organizations address the root causes of inequities that threaten low-income communities of color, while adapting to contemporary challenges by proposing new modes of social change. For example, youth-centered leadership has long been at the crux of youth organizing; meanwhile, “healing” has increasingly emerged as a prominent aspect of youth organizations devoted to social change. This article thus summarizes our panel’s insights about youth organizing across California.

Keywords

youth social movements intersectionality inclusivity racial difference

Introduction

We represent diverse perspectives around issue areas, geographies, base demographics, and histories in youth organizing: Jose Orellana, Delano youth activist and LOUD For Tomorrow co-founder; Jamileh Ebrahimi, RYSE Center Youth Organizing Director; Tony Douangviseth, Executive Director of Youth Together; May Lin, Californians For Justice (CFJ) Research Associate and PhD candidate; Veronica Terriquez, PhD, professor of sociology at UC Santa Cruz; and Uriel Serrano, session organizer and PhD student. We are leaders and scholars of youth organizing around education, immigrant, electoral, healing, and racial justice. Drawing from our experiences and Terriquez’s surveys of almost 1,400 youth across 96 organizations, coding of an audio transcription of the panel, and a review of the relevant literature, we highlight cross-cutting themes of youth organizing in California. We situate these themes within both long-standing legacies and evolving terrains.

Contexts of Youth Organizing in California

Youth organizing in California, including some of our organizations, emerged in response to a barrage of attacks on low-income youth of color in the mid-1990s to early 2000s. For example, proposition 209 banned affirmative action, proposition 187 denied undocumented immigrants access to public social services, and proposition 21 ramped up criminalization of youth (HoSang 2010). Responding to this systemic violence, youth in the most affected communities led campaigns and created organizations rooted in their intersecting needs produced by structural forces including pervasive disinvestment, racism, and xenophobia (Noguera, Cammarota, and Ginwright 2013; Warren and Goodman 2018).

Such campaigns—wherein low-income youth of color address the root causes of inequities jeopardizing their communities—distinguish youth organizing from other youth civic spaces (Ginwright and James 2002; Rogers, Mediratta, and Shah 2012). Campaigns focus on systemic change (Clay 2012; Ginwright and Cammarota 2007; Kirshner 2015). Young people conduct action research, identify issues that matter to them, target decision-makers who have power over these issues, and propose and enact solutions (Rogers et al. 2012; Terriquez 2017). For example, youth organizing campaigns have focused on reforming punitive discipline policies, advocating for Ethnic Studies and restorative justice, and fighting for more school staff and resources (Dominguez and Terriquez 2017; Serrano and Terriquez 2016).

Accordingly, youth leaders in these groups develop a range of civic capacities (Terriquez 2015b, 2017). Youth plan direct actions and other events, facilitate meetings, conduct delegation meetings with decision-makers, testify in public, and recruit peers (Bloemraad and Terriquez 2016; Terriquez 2015b, 2017) As such, youth increase their understanding of how school, district, and other policy processes work; unsurprisingly, they report higher levels of efficacy than their peers (Bloemraad and Terriquez 2016; Terriquez 2015b, 2017). Furthermore, Veronica Terriquez and Uriel Serrano (2018) found that the longer young people were part of these groups, the more that the organization had an impact on them.

Youth organizing group members also develop critical analyses of systemic inequality and empowered identities (Kwon 2008; Lin 2020; Watts and Flanagan 2007). By identifying the structural causes of social problems and analyzing social policies, young people of color receive critical civics education (Terriquez 2017). Furthermore, low-income participants of color learn about their and peers’ intersecting identities (Terriquez 2015a). For example, young people surveyed learned about their own racial group, other groups, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) issues, and gender and economic inequality (Terriquez 2015a).

In this article, we build on extant research by highlighting how youth groups combat persisting systemic problems. Some strategies are long-standing. For example, youth movements have embraced intersectional identities and built across difference—whether expanding queer inclusivity in immigrant rights (Terriquez 2015a) and educational/racial justice movements (Clay 2012) or developing intersectionally informed campaigns (Terriquez and Lin 2020). Youth activists employ intersectionality as a collective frame to understand their intersecting identities, provoke action, and guide inclusivity (Terriquez, Brenes, and Lopez 2018). Other practices have historically been less customary for most youth organizing groups. Organizations are increasingly engaging in healing practices such as circles, mindfulness activities, meditation, cultural practices, and/or support groups to address both individual and collective trauma (Chavez-Diaz and Lee 2015; Ginwright 2015; Lee 2014; Terriquez and Serrano 2018). Healing spaces address current and historical trauma and develop youths’ well-being, healthy practices, and sustainability in movement participation (Terriquez and Serrano 2018).

Organizational Descriptions

In this section, we provide background information on RYSE Youth Center, Youth Together, LOUD For Tomorrow, and CFJ in the order that we presented. While capacity, membership, and programming varies across the four youth organizations, we all support the engagement of young people of color in grassroots and advocacy efforts aimed at improving well-being in our respective regions.

RYSE Youth Center

Located in Richmond, California, RYSE Youth Center (https://rysecenter.org/) envisions “strong, healthy, united communities where equity is the norm and violence is neither desired nor required.” Accordingly, RYSE provides programming in four core areas that span a spectrum of direct service to systems change, anchored in young people’s expertise in their needs and possibilities. The Education and Justice Department includes academic support and youth-driven policy projects to win equity in education and justice systems. Youth organizing internships train youth in leadership and community organizing skills. Meanwhile, the Media, Arts, & Culture Department facilitates creative expression such as video production and graphic design. Finally, community health programs, including individual counseling and urban gardening, support youth-identified health priorities. RYSE has served over 4,000 members over the past 10 years, or approximately 200 youth per month (RYSE Center 2019). Ninety-five percent are young people of color, and 25 percent identify as LGBTQ.

RYSE’s scope is local, regional, and statewide. A current policy focus is Contra Costa Justice Reinvestment or community-based solutions to incarceration (RYSE Center 2019). With allies, RYSE has won several victories for restorative justice and similar approaches as alternatives to punitive school discipline and youth incarceration. For example, RYSE won an agreement with the District Attorney’s Office in 2019 to implement a restorative justice diversion program in Contra Costa County. RYSE was also a key part of the coalitional Kids First Richmond Campaign, which established a Department of Children, Youth, and their Families and a Richmond Fund for Children and Youth that made $45 million available for services for children, youth, and families. Finally, RYSE is actively engaged in statewide efforts such as co-sponsoring CA Assembly Bill 656, which would create an Office of Healthy and Safe Communities. Funders include The California Endowment and the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Youth Together

Founded in 1996 to address inter-racial violence and inadequate school conditions, Youth Together supports middle and high school aged youth in Oakland, CA. Youth Together (http://www.youthtogether.net/) serves about 1,200 students yearly with a mission to build across racial difference by promoting peace, unity, and justice to address the root cause of educational inequities. Their “theory of change” centers on the “belief that youth empowerment must include individual transformation, community building and youth leadership” (Youth Together 2019). As such, Youth Together’s internships and afterschool programs build youth power through leadership development, consciousness raising, and political engagement rooted in challenging institutions. For example, youth from three different high schools in the 20-year-old Lead Student Organizers Internship program advocate for legislation, ordinances, and other policy changes. In 2017 and 2018, Lead Student Organizer Interns conducted youth-led participatory action research to examine Oakland Unified School District’s (OUSD) role in preparing young people for success. After collecting and analyzing data, youth presented their findings to OUSD and developed recommendations centered on the theme of “Real Community Schools.” Youth encouraged OUSD to “create more accountability, access, and understanding” around resource allocation (Youth Together 2020).

Currently, Youth Together also runs a monthly parent empowerment program called The Youth Together Parent Academy. The program equips parents with tools to advocate for their children, recognizing the social and educational inequities faced by families. Founders and supporters include The Alcibie Alliance Fund, The Communities for Just School New Venture Fund, The East Bay Community Foundation, The San Francisco Foundation, and The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth.

LOUD For Tomorrow

The newest of the four organizations, LOUD For Tomorrow (www.facebook.com/loud4tmrw/) was founded in 2018 by Jose Orellana and Rosanai Paniagua, UC Santa Cruz undergraduate students from the Central Valley region, and adult ally, Valerie Gorospe from Delano. LOUD For Tomorrow’s mission is to build youth power to transform schools and communities through civic engagement, advocacy, and community healing. With initial support from Delano’s Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, LOUD For Tomorrow advocates for youth voter registration, voter engagement, and environmental justice. Even prior to its one year anniversary, LOUD For Tomorrow won a successful campaign in Kern County to allocate 2.65 million to pave Kern County roads, which would improve school bus transportation.

In summer of 2018, LOUD For Tomorrow passed the “Empowering and Preparing Young Voters for a Stronger Democracy” resolution. The resolution gives non-partisan groups access to the three Delano Joint Union High School District (DJUHSD) high schools to pre-register and register youth voters. By February 2019, LOUD For Tomorrow had registered and pre-registered 200 youth at football games, school lunches, and other community events. Current funders include The California Endowment, the Sierra Health Foundation, and The Latino Community Foundation.

CFJ

CFJ (https://caljustice.org/) is a “statewide youth-powered organization fighting for racial justice,” with regional offices in Fresno, Long Beach, Oakland, and San Jose. CFJ develops the leadership of youth of color, especially immigrant, low-income, and LGBTQ youth, to realize a “youth-centered vision for just, healthy, and vibrant schools” (CFJ 2019). As such, CFJ engages 250 youth per year in leadership development and advocacy, focusing especially on the holistic development of over 100 regularly engaged “core” youth leaders. CFJ’s current campaign, Relationship Centered Schools, emerged from youth-led action research including surveys of 2,000 students and interviews with 65 school leaders. Youth found that relationships with caring adults are key to students’ academic success. This campaign links to CFJ’s broader work, which spans five main issue areas: student engagement, equitable school funding, reframing the achievement gap, school climate, and racial equity. These foci materialize, for example, in supporting students to co-lead change necessary in their schools, districts, and California’s education system—such as making key decisions on budget allocations. CFJ student leaders assert that a welcoming school climate and attention to social emotional learning are critical for the success of low-income students of color in particular.

Other accomplishments have included a coalitional win of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which directed more funds toward districts with higher concentrations of “high-need” students, or low-income, English Learner, and foster youth. CFJ’s Student Voice Campaign further ensured that districts must engage students in deciding how these funds are spent. Local regions have also won racial and educational justice victories. In Long Beach and Fresno, students won school and district commitments to restorative justice as an alternative to punitive school discipline. In San Jose, student leaders successfully convinced the district to make A–G university requirements the default curriculum so that all students can have access to college preparation curriculum. In San Jose, students worked with East Side Union High School District to become the first district to adopt a resolution around CFJ’s recommendations for Relationship Centered Schools. Funders have included The California Endowment.

Cross-cutting Themes across the Presentations

The following section presents the cross-cutting themes of our panel on California youth groups and youth social movements. First, we show how youth leadership is at the core of Youth Together, CFJ, RYSE Youth Center, and Loud4Tomorrow. Second, we describe practices that foster queer inclusivity. Third, we highlight strategies for building across racial differences. Finally, we show the ethics of love and care practices.

Youth-led Leadership

Deep investment in youth leadership is at the heart of our groups’ visions. We nurture young people’s capacities so they can take ownership over decision-making processes in our organizations, schools, and communities. Jamileh, RYSE Organizing Director, reflected that “Young people are saying, ‘We know we can’t run it, but we need to be at the center. We are the experts of our lived experience.’” Accordingly, RYSE foregrounds youth voice in both internal organizational practices and outwardly oriented campaigns. Youth developed RYSE’s vision and strategy. Young people were centered at every step of the previously mentioned Kids First Richmond campaign, whether forging campaign strategy or canvassing to garner votes for multiple ballot measures. Youth also developed ballot language by incorporating trauma-informed, healing-centered language highly attuned to gender, race, class, and other dimensions of equity.

Our organizations develop youth’s skills to lead these processes. For example, both CFJ and Youth Together’s leadership programs train youth to shape decision-making in school and community spaces, such as school-site councils and district-wide youth advisory committees. In CFJ’s Relationship Centered Schools campaign, students partner with school staff to craft policies in service of racial and educational equity. For example, students advocate for practices such as including students on staff hiring committees and student-led trainings for staff on implicit bias and other issues. As such, our organizations both practice youth leadership in our everyday practices and transform institutions that have not always acknowledged, let alone foregrounded youth expertise.

Queer Inclusivity

Our organizations also intentionally create safe and inclusive spaces, particularly for low-income, queer youth of color. Adult organizers often openly discuss personal experiences to engender a welcoming environment for students’ own exploration. Tony, Youth Together’s Executive Director, recalled a prominent memory from his own experience as a youth member. During one activity, participants were asked to step forward if the statement applied to them. Tony recalled the tense moment when participants were asked to step up if they identified as LGBTQ:

I just remember standing in that line and then our peers looking back and forth, back and forth down the line like, “Oh nobody’s going to step forward.” It surprised me that my site organizer decided to step up. It was amazing to us—because of her leadership, other people decided to step up as well too. That created that moment of opportunity to have a conversation of what it means to have an organization that can fully support our LGBTQ community . . . A lot of our students are going through that situation where they’re either all the way out, they’re scared to come out or they’re just right there. 30% of our students are openly out. They feel safe at Youth Together because our site organizers understand and reflect that as well too.

Tony’s story showed how adults modeling vulnerability can encourage students to express their own identities—especially because many other spaces can marginalize and make queer and/or gender non-conforming youth feel unsafe.

Similarly, Jose pointed out that LOUD For Tomorrow is especially crucial and life-giving for LGBTQ youth members. He reflected that Central Valley youth “have this mentality that there’s nothing there for us.” Disinvestment, along with systemic homophobia, can equate safety and upward mobility with leaving youth’s community behind. LOUD For Tomorrow thus hopes to advocate for mental health services, especially for queer youth. Of course, queer youth are not the only population in need of this resource: Jose pointed out that there is only one school psychologist for four high schools in the entire school district.

Queer inclusivity also materializes in political education workshops. For example, CFJ uplifts the stories of queer and trans social movement leaders of color including Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Patrisse Cullors. This intersectional focus encourages many youth members to situate their own experiences within broader intersecting structural forces of race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and more. CFJ’s leadership development also encourages young people to actively interrupt homophobia and transphobia in their everyday lives. For example, adults ask young people to reflect on and role-play how they can support non-binary friends if they are misgendered by school staff or peers. As such, our groups encourage young people to embrace their intersecting, complex experiences to foster inclusiveness in their communities more broadly.

Building across Racial Differences

Our organizations also build nuanced coalitions across differences. Some of our groups emerged out of the explicit need to address racial tensions. For example, Youth Together was born in response to several racialized conflicts between black students and Asian American and Pacific Islander students at a school in Oakland. Tony explained that young adults who would eventually become Youth Together staff stepped in to mediate because they recognized that violence should be contextualized within root causes and addressed through holistic solutions. These youth and adult allies subsequently formed Youth Together as a “multi-racial justice organization.” They diagnosed one root cause of racial tensions as such: “we don’t learn enough about our own folks and then we don’t learn enough about your folks.” In response, Youth Together developed a One Land, One People Youth Center at Skyline High School to embrace the demographic diversity of East/West Oakland.

We also discussed intersectionality as not only a theoretical lens, but informing practice. May, CFJ research associate, reflected that CFJ sees solidarity as “not just an abstract principle, but something that we try to practice in our everyday lives.” This concept manifests in CFJ’s efforts to create a “brave space” to embrace difference, even when discussing power and privilege can engender discomfort. Students from diverse backgrounds express both similarities and differences in lived experiences around, say, policing and academic expectations. CFJ develops students’ skills to understand shared and diverging experiences via workshops around topics such as anti-blackness, xenophobia, and colonialism. Accordingly, students come to understand complex power dynamics within low-income communities of color. Confronting issues such as anti-blackness also means that CFJ is “intentional about who’s being represented and who’s not.” This looks like ensuring that black folks and other folks of color are truly represented among staff, leadership, and youth membership. Our groups thus address and embrace difference head-on, recognizing that doing so is both challenging and necessary.

Creating a “Beloved Community”

Our organizations lead with an ethic of love and care, fostering what Jamileh referred to as “a beloved community.” Popularized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a

beloved community . . . is this type of spirit and this type of love that can transform opposers into friends. It is this type of understanding goodwill that will transform the deep gloom of the old age into the exuberant gladness of the new age. (King 1957)

For our groups, a beloved community is an everyday practice that centers healing, well-being, and self- and collective care in everyday interactions, organizationally, and in the community. For example, Tony and Jamileh both spoke about the importance of providing staff with ample paid time off to heal, rest, and practice self-care—all critical given the intensity of their work and lived experiences. As May discussed, time off and self-care also enable youth organizers and youth activists to “have emotional energy to be able to address these issues in ongoing conversations.” We also promote “beloved community” by creating community agreements, or shared understandings of expectations of how to be with each other in community spaces. Our groups develop community agreements across multiple occasions (i.e., meetings, between adults and youth, mobilizations). Furthermore, Jamileh shared that RYSE’s practice of beloved community entails being attuned to questions of “How are we honoring our resilience and resistance? How do we stop to celebrate and have fun? How are we doing so when we’re leading with love and rage? How are we prioritizing relationships? How are we acknowledging the justice and harm, taking risk, acknowledging and stopping when there’s grief and loss?” That is, RYSE holistically addresses the racialized, classed, gendered trauma that youth members experience. Organizing in RYSE’s understanding extends beyond policy victories to broader transformation that includes complex emotions, healing, and relationship building.

Conclusion

Young people have always been at the forefront of social movements. Our panel highlighted the work of youth organizers and youth organizing in California. Youth organizing groups are carving out concrete measurable wins. Organizations in the Central Valley, including LOUD For Tomorrow, substantially increased youth voter turnout between the 2014–2018 midterm elections (Terriquez, Villegas, and Villalobos 2019). Other wins and campaign victories have included the allocation of funds for environmental justice–related issues and the guaranteed inclusion of A–G university requirements in curriculum across school districts.

Robin D. G. Kelley (2002) argues, when social movement scholars evaluate movements based on whether or not they succeed, they miss the opportunity to capture alternate visions and dreams that inspire new generations of struggle. He suggests a question that reframes our understanding: “What are today’s young activists dreaming about? We know what they are fighting against, but what are they fighting for?” (Kelley 2002: 7). As we have pointed out, young activists fight for youth power by promoting queer inclusivity, building across racial difference, and cultivating a “beloved community.” Youth build on the legacies of past social movements, with a keen eye to contemporary challenges. Our youth members advance less-conventionally used models of youth organizing and social change by centering healing practices and increasing use of intersectional praxis. We provide a glimpse into the possibilities and promises of contemporary youth social movements: what Robin D. G. Kelley refers to as “incubators of new knowledge.” Youth leadership serves as a model for visionary organizing, not only in California and beyond.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks Jamileh Ebrahimi, Tony Douangviseth, May Lin, Jose Orellana, and Veronica Terriquez for their participation in the 2019 PSA Annual Meeting. He also expresses his gratitude to PSA Past-president, Elaine Kaplan, for entrusting him with this Presidential Session. We collectively thank the co-guest editors of this special issue.

Authors’ Note

This article is part of the Special Issue on “Millennials/Gen Z: Engaging, Researching and Teaching about Power, Diversity, and Change” based on Presidential Sessions at the Pacific Sociological Association’s 90th Annual Meeting (March 28–31, 2019).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Uriel Serrano is a PhD candidate in Sociology and Critical Race and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His community-engaged research explores questions around race and gender, children and youth, social movements and resistance, and neighborhood institutions in the context of carceral violence.

May Lin, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the Social Movement Support Lab, a project of the Interdisciplinary Research Institute for the Study of (in)Equality at the University of Denver. She is a community-engaged scholar and educator who supports transformative change led by those most impacted by systemic injustice.

Jamileh Ebrahimi has been the RYSE Center Youth Organizing Director since 2012. As Youth Organizing Director, she builds a vibrant youth organizing culture both at the Center and in the Richmond community. Jamileh is deeply committed to education, organizing, organizational and community sustainability, and movement building, and through her 18+ years of community organizing, she has discovered the importance of community empowerment, healthy living, and justice.

Jose Orellana is co-founder and lead organizer for LOUD For Tomorrow. His experience as an intern with Central Valley Freedom Summer led him down a path of youth organizing in his hometown. After seeing the power of organizing, he and other Delano youth, started LOUD For Tomorrow to build youth power and transform the Delano.

Rosanai Paniagua is the daughter of farm laborers Rosa and Ruben Paniagua. She is the Co-Founder and a youth organizer for LOUD For Tomorrow. After interning with Central Valley Freedom Summer and seeing the power a community can have with unity, she was determined to continue organizing in her hometown for a more safe and just environment for all.

Veronica Terriquez is a sociologist whose research focuses on social inequality, civic engagement, and immigrant integration.

References

Bloemraad

Irene

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2016. “Cultures of Engagement: The Organizational Foundations of Advancing Health in Immigrant and Low-income Communities of Color.” Social Science & Medicine 165:214–22.

Californians for Justice. 2019. Retrieved July 30, 2019 (https://caljustice.org/).

Chavez-Diaz

Mara

Lee

Nicole

. 2015. “A Conceptual Mapping of Healing Centered Youth Organizing: Building a Case for Healing Justice.” Working Paper, Urban Peace Movement, Oakland, CA.

Clay

Andreana

. 2012. The Hip-hop Generation Fights Back: Youth, Activism and Post-Civil Rights Politics. New York City: New York University Press.

Dominguez

Gaby

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2017. Youth Civic Engagement and Community Well-being in South Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

Ginwright

Shawn

. 2015. Hope and Healing in Urban Education: How Urban Activists and Teachers Are Reclaiming Matters of the Heart. New York: Routledge.

Ginwright

Shawn

Cammarota

Julio

. 2007. “Youth Activism in the Urban Community: Learning Critical Civic Praxis within Community Organizations.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20(6):693–710.

Ginwright

Shawn

James

Taj

. 2002. “From Assets to Agents of Change: Social Justice, Organizing, and Youth Development.” New Directions for Youth Development 2002(96):27–46.

HoSang

Daniel Martinez

. 2010. Racial Propositions: Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

10.

Kelley

Robin D. G.

2002. Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

11.

King

Martin Luther

. 1957. “Facing the Challenge of a New Age.” The Phylon Quarterly 18(1):25–34.

12.

Kirshner

Ben

. 2015. Youth Activism in an Era of Education Inequality. New York: New York University Press.

13.

Kwon

Soo Ah

. 2008. “Moving from Complaints to Action: Oppositional Consciousness and Collective Action in a Political Community.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 39(1):59–76.

14.

Lee

Nicole

. 2014. Healing-centered Youth Organizing: A Framework for Youth Leadership in the 21st Century. Oakland, CA: Urban Peace Movement.

15.

Lin

May

. 2020. “From Alienated to Activists: Expressions and Formation of Group Consciousness among Asian American Young Adults.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46:1405–24.

16.

Noguera

Pedro

Cammarota

Julio

Ginwright

Shawn

, eds. 2013. Beyond Resistance! Youth Activism and Community Change. New York: Routledge.

17.

Rogers

John

Mediratta

Kavitha

Shah

Seema

. 2012. “Building Power, Learning Democracy: Youth Organizing as a Site of Civic Development.” Review of Research in Education 36(1):43–66.

18.

RYSE Center. 2019. “Home.” Retrieved July 31, 2019 (https://rysecenter.org/).

19.

Serrano

Uriel

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2016. Youth Civic Engagement and Community Well-being in Santa Ana. Los Angeles, CA: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

20.

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2015a. “Intersectional Mobilization, Social Movement Spillover, and Queer Youth Leadership in the Immigrant Rights Movement: Table 1.” Social Problems 62(3):343–62.

21.

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2015b. “Training Young Activists Grassroots Organizing and Youths’ Civic and Political Trajectories.” Sociological Perspectives 58(2):223–42.

22.

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2016. Youth Civic Engagement and Community Well-being in California: Summary of Key Findings from the 2016 Youth Leadership and Health Survey. Los Angeles, CA: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

23.

Terriquez

Veronica

. 2017. Building Healthy Communities through Youth Leadership: The Comprehensive Developmental Outcomes of Youth Organizing. Los Angeles, CA: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

24.

Terriquez

Veronica

Brenes

Tizoc

Lopez

Abdiel

. 2018. “Intersectionality as a Multipurpose Collective Action Frame: The Case of the Undocumented Youth Movement.” Ethnicities 18:260–76.

25.

Terriquez

Veronica

Lin

May

. 2020. “Yesterday They Marched, Today They Mobilised the Vote: A Developmental Model for Civic Leadership among the Children of Immigrants.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46:747–69.

26.

Terriquez

Veronica

Serrano

Uriel

. 2018. A Beloved Community: Promoting the Healing, Well-being, and Leadership Capacities of Boys and Young Men of Color. Los Angeles, CA: USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.

27.

Terriquez

Veronica

Villegas

Villalobos

2019. “Central Valley Freedom Summer.” Contexts 18(3):54–57. doi:10.1177/1536504219864963.

28.

Warren

Mark R.

Goodman

David

. 2018. Lift Us Up, Don’t Push Us Out! Voices from the Front Lines of the Educational Justice Movement. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

29.

Watts

Roderick J.

Flanagan

Constance

. 2007. “Pushing the Envelope on Youth Civic Engagement: A Developmental and Liberation Psychology Perspective.” Journal of Community Psychology 35(6):779–92.

30.

Youth Together. 2019. “Theory of Change.” Retrieved July 31, 2019 (http://www.youthtogether.net/about-2/theory-of-change/).

31.

Youth Together. 2020. “Youth Together 2017-2018 Listening Campaign Results.” Retrieved April 8, 2021 (http://www.youthtogether.net/2018/10/09/youth-together-2017-2018-listening-campaign-results/).