Facilitating youth development through service-learning: Social justice implications for underserved youth

Abstract

The implications of how service-learning participation can enhance civic knowledge and engagement among young people are discussed at length in the existing literature. However, research that explores the utility of formalizing service-learning as a means of enriching civic education for underserved and minority youth is lacking, particularly within the context of secondary education. The purpose of this article is to contribute to the discourse around increasing the use of service-learning programs as a means of supplementing existing methods that facilitate well-rounded youth development (e.g. school curricula, afterschool programs, mentorship) and enhance well-being among underserved youth within a social justice framework. The aims of this article are met by first illuminating the risk factors facing minority and underserved youth. The social justice implications of service-learning participation for youth are then discussed. Finally, the feasibility of utilizing service-learning as a protective factor for marginalized youth is explored.

Keywords

civic engagement civic knowledge service-learning social justice youth

Introduction

Camino and Zeldin (2002) defined service-learning as ‘an instructional method that seeks to maximize individual learning while concurrently addressing community needs’ (p. 217). The purpose of service-learning is to do more than provide opportunities for participants to do something charitable or service-oriented. The process of service-learning also incorporates an expectation that participants conclude their experience having learned something about the circumstances surrounding the creation and potential mitigation of an existing need (Giddings, 2003). Several studies have shown the benefits of youth (e.g. adolescents and emerging adults) involvement in service-learning (Batchelder and Root, 1994; Giles and Eyler, 1994; Keen and Hall, 2009; Lakin and Mahoney, 2006; Lay, 2007; Markus et al., 1993; Seider, 2007; Seider et al., 2011a), but few have discussed the implications of formalizing service-learning as a means of enriching civic education for underserved and minority youth (e.g. students of color, poor youth, female youth, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) youth, etc.), particularly within the context of secondary education.

Examples of the potential gains of using service-learning as a means of supplementing existing curricula can be found in the literature. For instance, Seider et al., (2010) studied the outcomes of involvement in a service-learning program and found that participating students’ beliefs about poverty, inequality, and social injustice were significantly changed when compared to similar students who did not take part in the program. Seider et al. (2012) also investigated the impact of participation in another service-learning program. They found that the service-learning program positively and significantly impacted participants’ expected political voices, which was estimated by their level of expected civic engagement (e.g. expressing their political opinion by voting, contacting elected officials, signing petitions, etc.). That same program also had a significant effect on students’ commitment to public/community service (Seider et al., 2011a). The implications of how service-learning participation can enhance civic knowledge and engagement among young people are promising. This is especially salient for underserved and minority youth and emerging adults who often find themselves marginalized or disenfranchised by oppressive systems in some way.

However, the implications of service-learning for marginalized youth are not broadly discussed in the existing literature. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to contribute to the discourse around increasing the use of service-learning programs as a means of supplementing existing methods that facilitate well-rounded youth development (e.g. school curricula, afterschool programs, mentorship) and enhance well-being among underserved youth within a social justice framework. The aims of this article will be met by first illuminating the risk factors facing minority and underserved youth, with a particular focus on issues of race and class. The social justice implications of service-learning participation for youth will then be discussed. Finally, the feasibility of utilizing service-learning as a protective factor for marginalized youth will be explored.

Existing challenges

The literature on the challenges that minority and underserved youth face is extensive. Although a complete exploration of these factors is beyond the scope of this article, it is fitting to use these very real issues as a way to illustrate how service-learning can be beneficial to underserved youth, which will be explicated in the sections that follow. Service-learning can provide youth with an opportunity to learn about ways to address a wide range of problems in and outside of their communities, some of which they may be facing themselves. Poverty (Sandy and Duncan, 2010), limited educational attainment (Condron et al., 2012), unemployment, and criminal/delinquent activity (Osgood et al., 2010) are just some of the risk factors that minority and underserved youth have to contend with. Other risk factors include healthcare access (Clauss-Ehlers, 2003; Davis et al., 2008), high risk sexual behavior (Browning et al., 2008; Dupéré et al., 2008; Seal et al., 2000), and unplanned pregnancy (Osgood et al., 2010). These risk factors are often manifold and compounded by lacking resources in their respective households and communities, making it virtually impossible to consider their effects separately because they so frequently co-occur in the lives of those affected.

For example, the educational experiences of Black youth living in poverty is notably different than their White peers regarding mental health diagnoses, assessment of learning needs, risk of poor academic performance, and punishment for disruptive behaviors in school (Tucker and Dixon, 2009). In addition, poverty has been linked to truant behaviors in children and adolescents, which increases the likelihood of low academic achievement, school dropout, future unemployment, criminal activity, and other high-risk behaviors (Newsome et al., 2008). Even when services are made available in an effort to address these issues, their ability to account for the needs of students’ background and individual risk factors in ways that are culturally competent and evidence-based are often minimal (Koffman et al., 2009).

It is not uncommon for outcomes associated with the risk factors facing underserved, marginalized youth (e.g. poverty and low educational attainment) to persist well into adulthood (Osgood et al., 2010). As a result, adult responsibilities such as acquiring and maintaining gainful employment become difficult for these individuals (Curtis, 2012). The effect of this outcome impacts the larger society as well as those lacking an adequate education or training in some vocation. Becker and Luthar (2002) noted that the cost society pays to support an uneducated adult is six times more than keeping a student in high school through graduation.

Educational underachievement and underemployment increase the likelihood of underserved youth engaging in criminal and delinquent behavior, increasing their chances of being pulled into a cycle of ongoing community violence (Koffman et al., 2009). Osgood et al. (2010) illuminated the challenges faced by youth who experience life where poverty, juvenile justice, and a lack of services intersect in some way as they transition to adulthood. Three major domains where these youth struggle are educational attainment, employment, and family formation upon entering adulthood. They also note that males and young men of color are commonly overrepresented in each of these subpopulations. Unruh et al. (2009) also looked at barriers to youth successfully transitioning to adulthood and mentioned similar challenges, but their study focused more intently on juvenile offenders. More specifically, they name poverty, criminal history, negative peer groups, abusive family environment, disability status, being an ethnic minority, low educational achievement, and being male as risk factors that potentially hinder these youth from transitioning into adulthood with the ability to support themselves.

The role of schools and social justice implications

Schools are arguably one of the most important social institutions in a young person’s life, given their role in preparing youth to participate in democratic processes and address matters of social justice (Hope and Jagers, 2014). Unfortunately, schools are also where many of the negative outcomes associated with the risk factors facing underserved and minority youth manifest without being adequately resolved. ‘Year after year, many of these students become negative statistics [(e.g. low educational attainment, school dropout, and underemployment)], which schools and states unfairly point to as the source of problems for the system as a whole’ (McMurrey, 2014: 32). Palley (2008) examined federal education laws regarding schools’ obligations to students with disabilities and other at-risk youth (i.e. minority children and poor children). She concluded that the needs of at-risk youth were not being met even though there were several mandates in place. This persistent disparity in educational outcomes increases the likelihood of at-risk youth experiencing the long-term negative outcomes associated with high-risk sexual behavior (Raiford et al., 2014) and criminal activity (Carpenter and Nevin, 2010). These negative outcomes also leave at-risk youth vulnerable to unemployment (Tyler and Lofstrom, 2009) and compromised mental and emotional health (Koffman et al., 2009; Tucker and Dixon, 2009).

The amalgamation of circumstances that lead to White students on average outperforming students of color, even when socioeconomic status are taken into consideration (Howard and Reynolds, 2008) is understandably complex (Chambers, 2009). Yet, a recurring trend in the literature highlights class and race as a root cause of the persistent disparity (Allen, 2012; Burchinal et al., 2011; Glickman and Scally, 2008; Levinson, 2007). Sandy and Duncan (2010) explored the achievement gap present in a sample of urban and suburban students. Their results indicated that most of the observed differences in test scores could be attributed to racial and class differences.

Milner (2013) invited scholars to rethink how the achievement gap and all its indicators are conceptualized. From a different angle, one could see that the achievement gap is as much, if not more, a social justice issue than a matter of students’ aptitude. Many minority youth are underserved by their respective education systems as a result. The disparity in access to educational resources yields a number of negative outcomes, including poor educational attainment. There are many facets of the current education system that impede the development of underserved and minority youth, which has broad social justice implications (Greenleaf and Hinchman, 2009). Condron et al. (2013) demonstrated this when they looked at the impact that school segregation had on the Black/White achievement gap and found that the isolation of Black students from White peers increased achievement gaps in math and reading. They also found that the achievement gap began to close when students attended more integrated schools. The policy implications of these findings highlight a need for a renewed effort to integrate schools, which has dwindled in many parts of the nation. In fact, there are many American school districts that are currently segregated along class and racial lines (Condron et al., 2013; Seaton and Yip, 2009).

These economic and racial disparities profoundly affect how educational resources are allocated. They also affect how underserved and minority students see themselves (Chambers, 2009) and how they are treated within these unbalanced systems (Allen, 2012). In their study of what it means to ‘act Black’, Peterson-Lewis and Bratton (2004) observed how Black youth conceptualized ‘acting Black’ within the context of educational attainment. Students’ perceptions were found to be overwhelmingly negative. Pervasive attitudes held by students that fuel the expectation of poor academic performance and disruptive behaviors create self-fulfilling prophecies that limit their capacity for educational attainment. The educators these students engage daily at times reinforce these negative perceptions by being apathetic (Ginwright, 2010) and assuming that students and their families are the sole source of their own academic shortcomings (Allen, 2012; Burchinal et al., 2011). Given that adolescents’ transition to adulthood is often greatly determined by the quality of their education, the current discourse around these issues would benefit from a shift that elucidates the causes at the root of such negative self-perceptions.

Scholars have discussed a need to reframe our perception of the observed disparities that have been repeatedly discussed in the literature (Chambers, 2009; Ladson-Billings, 2008; Milner, 2013). Such a shift would also draw more attention to the systematic causes of the disparate outcomes so prevalent in student populations across the country. In recent years, researchers have investigated educational outcomes with this paradigm shift in mind by seeking to ameliorate ‘opportunity gaps’ that are derived from a number of environmental factors including resource allocation and health disparities (Della Sala and Knoeppel, 2015; Miretzky et al., 2016; Parker, 2015; Verstegen, 2015). Reconceptualizing the disparity in educational outcomes makes it possible to consider how schools can begin to address these issues in a more systematic way by acknowledging their role in institutionalizing these impediments to social justice (i.e. receiving an adequate education).

One area in particular where these schools fall short is in providing an adequate education around civic knowledge and engagement (Kahne and Westheimer, 2003; Levinson, 2007). By not sufficiently exposing their students to these subjects, educators place youth at risk of becoming negatively impacted in various areas of their lives. This is so because students will lack the understanding of social systems necessary to initiate change. This deficit in access to civic knowledge can leave marginalized youth feeling powerless against the various social institutions that have a history of bias against them (Levinson, 2007). Consider the advantages of understanding the connection between political and economic systems and how that impacts social mobility. Such knowledge can lead to the acquisition and pooling of resources within a specific community that can change the quality of life in that area (Sidhu, 2013). Otherwise, community members may assume the fatalistic disposition that there is little to nothing that they can do to improve their current environment. Other areas where civic knowledge can benefit underserved communities include criminal justice, housing, education, and legislation ranging from local to federal politics. By taking a more active role in producing civic-minded individuals, schools stand to help the families that they serve turn all of the aforementioned challenges into opportunities that could lead to positive, long-term changes.

The utility of service-learning

Associated/potential outcomes

The utility of service-learning should not be underestimated considering the evidence of its effectiveness. Formally incorporating such programs into existing curricula or using service-learning to supplement the civic education of underserved and minority youth can help them to use their collective voice to address long-standing problems in their schools and communities. It could also potentially benefit them by contributing to their overall well-being (Ludden, 2011). This reasoning is in line with the evidence provided by Conrad and Hedin (1982), who found that experiential education (e.g. service-learning) programs positively affect participants’ psychological, social, and mental development. In addition, Markus et al. (1993) conducted an experiment that integrated service-learning and classroom instruction in an undergraduate program and observed a marked change in how participating students saw their communities. They also noticed participants’ academic performance was positively affected.

Considering the wide range of issues that merit civic engagement and a fundamental level of civic knowledge, the possibilities of how youth can be impacted are especially broad. Youth who took part in service-learning programs have been reported to think more critically about the world around them and how they engage it (Keen and Hall, 2009); especially when the programs made an explicit connection between service-learning and social justice (Mitchell, 2007). This paradigm shift was observed in how students viewed economic systems and how they impact those living in poverty (Giles and Eyler, 1994; Mitchell, 2015; Seider et al., 2011b), their commitment to volunteerism and community service (Seider, 2007), and the development of service-oriented career aspirations (Reed et al., 2005).

So what, specifically, could this mean for marginalized youth? One of the benefits that would come from service-learning participation is an understanding of human rights. Another benefit is the understanding that citizenship does not necessitate passive participation in the social systems we engage daily. Bearing in mind all of the aforementioned risk factors that underserved youth contend with, service-learning participation could facilitate student motivation to address existing social problems with new energy. Lakin and Mahoney (2006) studied the impact of community service participation on high school students. They observed that participating youth gained a sense of empowerment and connection to their community. These findings were significantly related to increased self-efficacy and intent to be active in their communities in the future. Service-learning participation could yield similar results. The difference would be in the amount of civic knowledge acquired by participating youth. This would serve them well if they chose to take steps to address any particular social problem affecting their school or community.

The boost in various forms of self-efficacy (e.g. general, academic, political) stemming from service-learning participation could also empower youth to advocate for themselves by teaching them what appropriate recourse is available should they ever feel marginalized in any way. For instance, political efficacy, or the belief that one can bring about change through individual or collective political action (Watts et al., 2011), is one of the many positive outcomes associated with service-learning (Evans, 2015; Pasek et al., 2008). Political efficacy is also positively associated with increased civic engagement in marginalized youth (Hope and Jagers, 2014). As a result, reactionary behaviors that negatively impact youth (e.g. externalizing or internalizing behaviors) would be effectively discouraged. O’Donnell et al. (1999) provided an example of this when they evaluated a community youth service program and its impact on violent behaviors in eighth-grade participants. They found that students who took part in the program were less likely to engage in aggressive behaviors (e.g. carry a weapon, fight, use a weapon) than peers who received classroom instruction only or were a part of a control group. Knowing what risks and challenges exist for underserved and minority youth, it becomes clear that

… young people experience oppression in community settings and this is especially true for disadvantaged youth. They are often silent and invisible unless they are perceived to be causing trouble. They are excluded from many of the decision making [sic] processes that affect their lives … The reality is, there is always going to be a limit on how connected to these contexts teenagers feel as long as their voice, influence, and support is limited. (Evans, 2007: 705)

Marginalized and underserved youth stand to benefit from service-learning participation in ways not observed in their more privileged peers by potentially having their voices strengthened. Service-learning participation also presents an opportunity for these youth to increase their influence and provide the supports necessary for them to exercise and fight for their rights; particularly those rights that are being denied or violated.

Circumventing barriers to formalized service-learning

In 2009, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (H.R. 1388) was passed. This particular bill included an amendment that detailed an initiative for school-based funding (i.e. Learn and Serve America) to encourage service-learning in schools in an effort to enhance academic and civic learning for students throughout the country. Although this piece of legislation was well intentioned, service-learning and civic education in schools has steadily declined in recent years due to educational policies that prioritize curricula geared toward testing outcomes (Berman, 2004; Kahne and Westheimer, 2003). A renewed effort to increase service-learning curricula implemented in schools could potentially have a profound effect on how students learn. Not to mention the implications for how they engage their communities. Currently, the notion of integrating service-learning in a meaningful way would likely be a herculean task on the part of educators and school administrators. This is especially true for schools operating under a probationary status or schools that have been deemed ‘failing’ given the current educational climate of accountability testing. Unfortunately, many of the students who stand to reap the most benefit from service-learning participation attend schools that are mandated to follow overly prescriptive curricula. This leaves little room for educational innovation or experiences that seem extracurricular. Providing service-learning opportunities that enhance civic knowledge in some way (e.g. learning about civic engagement and social justice issues) could change how marginalized and underserved students engage dysfunctional systems, including the development of a collective voice in how they are educated.

Given that many schools are somewhat limited in their capacity to enhance civic knowledge through service-learning curricula, a more feasible solution could manifest through partnering with external community organizations. It is doubtful that such partnerships would culminate in the increased civic education of all students at any particular school. However, partnering with external community organizations could create a domino effect in an underserved community by empowering targeted stakeholders (i.e. youth) to use their acquired skill set to mobilize members of their families and communities in an effort to push for lasting, positive change.

Examples of such a school–community partnership can be found in programs like Global Potential. The mission of Global Potential is to transform ‘youth from underserved communities through education, service-learning, and cultural exchange into globally competitive leaders of positive change in their lives and communities’ (Global Potential, n.d.). This particular service-learning program works with high schools to provide opportunities for underserved and marginalized youth to increase their civic knowledge and become change agents in their communities. This is accomplished through mentorship, intensive training, and service-learning. GP’s program extends through three phases over the course of approximately 17 months.

In the first phase, youth attend weekly workshops that focus on educating them about global preparedness, social entrepreneurship, community service, and advocacy (Global Potential, n.d.). In the second phase of the program, youth participate in service-learning projects locally or internationally (i.e. the Caribbean, Africa, or Central America). In the third phase of the program, youth are mentored as they use the skills they developed to conduct a service-learning project in their home communities. In this capacity, they become leaders and teachers who show others how to take meaningful steps to bring about change in their own lives. Programs like Global Potential provide opportunities for youth to utilize their civic education in ways that are not possible in schools that lack the capacity to implement service-learning curricula. They also provide a means of amplifying youth voices that often go unheard.

Initial agency-based data from Global Potential’s program evaluations suggest several positive outcomes that demonstrate some of the ideas previously explored in this article, particularly regarding the amelioration of some of the existing challenges mentioned above. For example, all Global Potential participants have completed their high school education. Most of those graduates went on to successfully pursue a postsecondary education or vocational training. The educational attainment of these students creates a pathway for them to support themselves upon entering adulthood. This same pathway helps them to lessen their chances of becoming involved in the criminal justice system or limited by chronic poverty and underemployment. In addition, these same students are empowered to engage their communities and raise awareness in meaningful ways. This can be seen in the various youth-led projects that have been conducted as a result of participation in the program. One of the many narratives that illustrate this point particularly well is the story of Hector (pseudonym), a young man born in Honduras.

Hector was active in gang culture before leaving Honduras for the United States and was a gang member for years after immigrating to New York City. Unsatisfied with the life he was living and the choices he was making, he longed to do something different. Global Potential presented an opportunity for him to do just that. Hector did not know what to expect from joining the program, but immediately began to notice his potential while learning about the importance of community and what it means to be a leader. While participating in the program, Hector began to value his education, develop healthy, lasting friendships, and believe in his ability to make meaningful contributions to his community. In his own words,

When I look at myself in the mirror now, I know who I really am: an artist, a leader, a successful friend, a person with many opportunities who can do what I want to do and be who I want to be.

This example is not presented here as a research finding but to illustrate the potential of such programs and their impact on youth.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the discourse related to increasing opportunities for service-learning participation in schools or through community partnerships. This would especially benefit underserved and minority youth, who face a number of risk factors and challenges to reaching adulthood. There is a growing body of research that illustrates the implications of increasing civic knowledge and engagement among youth. Legislation has also been passed that speaks to the utility of service-learning and community service for youth. Unfortunately, accountability standards and limited resources make it difficult for many schools across the country to sufficiently educate students who are either economically disadvantaged or historically marginalized. This decreases the likelihood that service-learning is emphasized or included in curricula explicitly dedicated to improving and maintaining standardized test scores. A short-term solution to this limitation can be attained through partnering with community organizations that provide service-learning opportunities to youth.

Although the evidence found in the existing literature is promising regarding the outcomes of service-learning participation, a strong enough case has not been made as to why a more formalized approach to these experiences should be sought. Much of the existing research related to service-learning focuses on college students from middle-class or more privileged backgrounds. There is a need to study the outcomes of service-learning participation in underserved student populations at the secondary education level. What makes this line of inquiry important is that it could yield effective methods that empower participants and their communities to effectively pursue social justice (e.g. changes in educational policy that lead to more favorable outcomes). To date, the positive impact these programs can have on the development and well-being of underserved and minority youth has not been sufficiently elucidated.

The implications of increasing service-learning opportunities are multifaceted in that they can positively affect the participating youth and their families, schools, and surrounding communities. For underserved and marginalized youth, the social justice implications of service-learning involvement are far reaching. Through participation, students become knowledgeable of the social systems and institutions that they engage daily and are empowered to be agents of change by understanding the strength of their voices both individually and collectively. This understanding of social systems gives them the tools they need to affect meaningful change in their own lives and the lives of their families and community members by engaging social institutions that often disenfranchise minorities and people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds.

High schools make a major contribution to the socialization of society’s youth, whose worldview is shaped in large part by their experiences in the classroom. Provision of service-learning to youth can help schools pursue their mission to help create well-rounded, civic-minded individuals willing and able to invest in their communities.

Communities stand to benefit greatly from service-learning programs that target adolescents and emerging adults. The experiential component of service-learning involvement can increase the interactions of youth, schools, and various communities in ways that help mitigate or raise awareness around issues that negatively affect their lives. Individuals within these communities have an opportunity to become a part of the learning processes of the youth they encounter, while learning that they too have the capacity to be change agents and are deserving of certain rights. Being that communities are often reflective of the schools that serve them and vice versa (Glickman and Scally, 2008), service-learning opportunities could be instrumental in helping students, parents, and educators utilize their voice through an increased understanding of civic knowledge.

Mitchell (2008) warns that

[w]ithout looking at access to social power and the role of power (or the lack of power) in determining who receives service as well as what services are provided, the potential of using service-learning as a pedagogy that brings society closer to justice is forfeit. (p. 56)

By teaching students about the world around them and what they can do to make it better, they become empowered and more invested in realizing their potential as individuals, so that they may become agents of change in their respective communities. However, more research is needed to bolster the evidence of these potential outcomes in underserved and marginalized youth. Doing so would have a lasting affect on how we educate our youth, especially youth from traditionally marginalized backgrounds. What makes this notion particularly striking is that the youth we educate today will be making decisions about how society is run in the near future. By discovering ways to ensure that they have a sufficient level of civic knowledge upon entering adulthood, the likelihood of undoing institutional discrimination and social injustice are increased exponentially.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from the Faculty Research and Development Fund, Fordham University, Graduate School of Social Service.

References

Allen

(2012) ‘They think minority means lesser than’: Black, middle-class sons and fathers resisting microaggressions in the school. Urban Education 48(2): 171–197.

Batchelder

Root

(1994) Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic learning and service: cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Journal of Adolescence 17(4): 341–355.

Becker

Luthar

(2002) Social-emotional factors affecting achievement outcomes among disadvantaged students: closing the achievement gap. Educational Psychologist 37(4): 197–214.

Berman

(2004) Teaching civics: a call to action. Principal Leadership 5(1): 16–20.

Browning

Burrington

Levanthal

, et al. (2008) Neighborhood structural inequality, collective efficacy, and sexual risk behavior among urban youth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 49(3): 269–285.

Burchinal

McCartney

Steinberg

, et al. (2011) Examining the Black-White achievement gap among low-income children using the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development 82(5): 1404–1420.

Camino

Zeldin

(2002). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engagement in the day-to-day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science 6(4): 213–220.

Carpenter

Nevin

(2010) Environmental causes of violence. Physiology & Behavior 99(2): 260–268.

Chambers

(2009) The ‘receivement gap’: school tracking policies and the fallacy of the ‘achievement gap’. Journal of Negro Education 78(4): 417–431.

10.

Clauss-Ehlers

(2003) Promoting ecological health resilience for minority youth: enhancing health care access through the school health center. Psychology in the Schools 40(3): 265–278.

11.

Condron

Tope

Steidl

, et al. (2012) Racial segregation and the Black/White achievement gap, 1992 to 2009. The Sociological Quarterly 54: 130–157.

12.

Conrad

Hedin

(1982) The impact of experiential education on adolescent development. Child & Youth Services 4(3-4): 57–76.

13.

Curtis

(2012) Understanding the effects of mental health on school performance. Online Journal of Rural and Urban Research 2(1).

14.

Davis

Ressler

Schwartz

, et al. (2008) Treatment barriers for low-income, urban African Americans with undiagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress 21(2): 218–222.

15.

Della Sala

Knoeppel

(2015) Measuring the alignment between states’ finance and accountability policies: the opportunity gap. Education Policy Analysis Archives 23(61): 1–25.

16.

Dupéré

Lacourse

Willms

, et al. (2008) Neighborhood poverty and early transition to sexual activity in young adolescents: a developmental ecological approach. Child Development 79(5): 1463–1476.

17.

Evans

(2015) Service-learning and political engagement, efficacy, and apathy: a case study at Sam Houston University. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice 10(2): 107–117.

18.

Evans

(2007) Youth sense of community: voice and power in community contexts. Journal of Community Psychology 35(6): 693–709.

19.

Giddings

(2003) Why use service-learning in college instruction? Journal of Community Service Learning.

20.

Giles

Eyler

(1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students’ personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence 17(4): 327–339.

21.

Ginwright

(2010) Peace out to revolution! Activism among African American youth: an argument for radical healing. Young: Nordic Journal of Youth Research 18(1): 77–96.

22.

Glickman

Scally

(2008) Can community and education organizing improve inner-city schools? Journal of Urban Affairs 30(5): 557–577.

23.

Global Potential (n.d.) Home. Available at: http://www.global-potential.org/ (accessed 10 July 2018).

24.

Greenleaf

Hinchman

(2009) Reimagining our inexperienced adolescent readers: from struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 53(1): 4–13.

25.

Hope

Jagers

(2014) The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the civic engagement of Black youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence 24(3): 460–470.

26.

Howard

Reynolds

(2008) Examining parent involvement in reversing the underachievement of African American students in middle-class schools. Educational Foundations 22(1–2): 79–98.

27.

Kahne

Westheimer

(2003) Teaching democracy: what do schools need to do. Phi Delta Kappan 85(1): 34–66.

28.

Keen

Hall

(2009) Engaging with difference matters: longitudinal student outcomes of co-curricular service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education 80(1): 59–79.

29.

Koffman

Ray

Berg

, et al. (2009) Impact of comprehensive whole child intervention and prevention program among youths at risk of gang involvement and other forms of delinquency. Children and Schools 31(4): 239–245.

30.

Ladson-Billings

(2008) A letter to our next president. Journal of Teacher Education 59(3): 235–239.

31.

Lakin

Mahoney

(2006) Empowering youth to change their world: identifying key components of a community service program to promote positive development. Journal of School Psychology 44(6): 513–531.

32.

Lay

(2007) Smaller isn’t always better: school size and school participation among young people. Social Science Quarterly 88(3): 790–815.

33.

Levinson

(2007) The civic achievement gap. Circle Working Paper 51, January. Available at: https://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP51Levinson.pdf

34.

Ludden

(2011) Engagement in school and community civic activities among rural adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescents 40: 1254–1270.

35.

McMurrey

(2014) Willful ignorance? The dropout crisis and United States public education policy. Journal of At-Risk Issues 18(1): 27–34.

36.

Markus

Howard

King

(1993) Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15(4): 410–419.

37.

Milner

(2013) Rethinking the achievement gap talk in urban education. Urban Education 48(3): 3–8.

38.

Miretzky

Chennault

Fraynd

(2016) Closing an opportunity gap: how a modest program made a difference. Education and Urban Society 48(1): 48–76.

39.

Mitchell

(2007) Critical service-learning as social justice education: a case study of the Citizen Scholar program. Equity and Excellence in Education 40(2): 101–112.

40.

Mitchell

(2008) Traditional vs. critical service-learning: engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 14(2): 50–65.

41.

Mitchell

(2015) Using a critical service-learning approach to facilitate civic identity development. Theory into Practice 54(1): 20–28.

42.

Newsome

Anderson-Butcher

Fink

, et al. (2008) The impact of school social work services on student absenteeism and risk factors related to school truancy. School Social Work Journal 32(2): 21–38.

43.

O’Donnell

Stueve

Doval

, et al. (1999) Violence prevention and young adolescents’ participation in community service. Journal of Adolescent Health 24(1): 28–37.

44.

Osgood

Foster

Courtney

(2010) Vulnerable populations and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children 20(1): 209–229.

45.

Palley

(2008) Federal school law and social work practice. School Social Work Journal 33(1): 16–34.

46.

Parker

(2015) You are what you eat: a critical analysis of neoliberal structuring of student food consumption in an urban food desert. Radical Pedagogy 12(2): 21–36.

47.

Pasek

Feldman

Romer

, et al. (2008) Schools as incubators of democratic participation: building long-term political efficacy with civic education. Applied Development Science 12(1): 26–37.

48.

Peterson-Lewis

Bratton

(2004) Perceptions of ‘acting Black’ among African American teens: implications for racial dramaturgy for academic and social achievement. The Urban Review 36(2): 81–100.

49.

Raiford

Herbst

Carry

, et al. (2014) Low prospects and high risk: structural determinants of health associated with sexual risk among young African American women residing in resource-poor communities in the south. American Journal of Community Psychology 54(3–4): 243–250.

50.

Reed

Jernstedt

Hawley

, et al. (2005) Effects of small-scale, very short-term service-learning experience on college students. Journal of Adolescence 28(3): 359–368.

51.

Sandy

Duncan

(2010) Examining the achievement test score gap between urban and suburban students. Education Economics 18(3): 297–315.

52.

Seal

Kelly

Bloom

, et al. (2000) HIV prevention with young men who have sex with men: what young men themselves say is needed. AIDS Care 12(1): 5–26.

53.

Seaton

Yip

(2009) School and neighborhood contexts, perceptions of discrimination, and psychological well-being among African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38: 153–163.

54.

Seider

(2007) Catalyzing a commitment to community service in emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research 22(6): 612–639.

55.

Seider

Gillmor

Rabinowicz

(2010) Complicating college students’ conception of the American dream through community service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 17(1): 5–19.

56.

Seider

Gillmor

Rabinowicz

(2012) The impact of community service learning upon the expected political voice of participating college students. Journal of Adolescent Research 27(1): 44–77.

57.

Seider

Rabinowicz

Gillmor

(2011a) Changing American college students’ conceptions of poverty through community service learning. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 11(1): 105–126.

58.

Seider

Rabinowicz

Gillmor

(2011b) The impact of philosophy and theology service-learning experiences upon the public service motivation of participating college students. Journal of Higher Education 82(5): 597–628.

59.

Sidhu

(2013) Civic education as an instrument of social mobility. Denver University Law Review 90(4): 977–1002.

60.

Tucker

Dixon

(2009) Low-income African American male youth with ADHD symptoms in the United States: recommendations for clinical mental health counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 31(4): 309–322.

61.

Tyler

Lofstrom

(2009) Finishing high school: alternative pathways and dropout recovery. The Future of Children 19(1): 77–103.

62.

Unruh

Povenmire-Kirk

Yamamoto

(2009) Perceived barriers and protective factors of juvenile offenders on their developmental pathways to adulthood. Journal of Correctional Education 60(3): 201–224.

63.

Verstegen

(2015) On doing an analysis of equity and closing the opportunity gap. Education Policy Analysis Archives 23(41): 1–20.

64.

Watts

Diemer

Voight

(2011) Critical consciousness: current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 134: 43–57.