Research Base — KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, & Abilities) of Youth Service Practitioners

Initiatives Examined

As an initial step, members of the Collaborative examined the current state of professional requirements, desirable competencies, and opportunities for professional development for staff that work directly with youth in the workforce development arena. A literature review of available material from the fields of workforce development, youth development, and disabilities was completed, including lists of front line worker competencies, training and apprenticeships, and organizational requirements. In total, over 70 initiatives were examined in the creation of a white paper and the draft list of competencies for youth service practitioners.

There were many common competencies across the fields and initiatives. All included knowledge of the field in which you are working, knowledge of the “clients” you are working with (youth, persons with disabilities, job seekers, etc), connection to families/community, connection to resources, some form of collaboration (with employers, programs, etc), program design/planning, use of resources, and of course, administration/management skills. The Department of Labor’s Youth Development Practitioner Apprenticeship model was chosen as the organizing framework for the KSA’s 10 Competency Areas because of its intentional inclusion of both youth development and workforce development. Appendices A & B of the white paper (KSA white paper in PDF format , KSA white paper in Word format ) list many of the initiatives reviewed and the common competencies found across them.

Validation by focus groups, stakeholder meeting, and questionnaire

To validate NCWD/Youth’s research and draft list of competencies, the Collaborative convened a meeting of the youth service practitioners practice network, conducted three focus groups, held two symposiums of key stakeholders, and developed an online feedback form. The youth service practitioners practice network, created to provide feedback and “front line” perspective to NCWD/Youth’s work, reviewed an early draft of the white paper and suggested additional resources. The three focus groups (one of youth service practitioners, one of managers and administrators, and one a combination of both) reviewed the draft list of competencies and suggested additions or improvements. Key workforce and youth development organizations involved in training, credentials, and certification, were convened twice to review the information gathered thus far, discuss current and future strategies for preparing youth service practitioners to effectively serve all youth, and suggest next steps for this work. The online feedback form asked practitioners and managers to rate the relevancy of, their proficiency in and training received in each competency.

The initial results showed all competency areas were ranked as highly relevant, especially Communication with Youth, Connection to Resources, and Assessment/Individualized Planning. It also showed a significant gap between the relevancy of Relationships with Employers & Employees and the amount of training currently offered in that competency area. All of the groups agreed with the initial list of competencies, emphasized the need for strengthening them across the field, and expressed an interest in developing partnerships and resources to build these competencies.

Studies of professional development/staff satisfaction/costs of staff loss & caring adults/youth outcomes

Research has shown several important benefits to organizations, staff practice, and youth as a result of professional development. For organizations, providing training and professional development for current staff is a smart investment. Advertising for, selecting, and training a new employee can cost an organization three to six months of productivity and 29 – 40% of a position’s salary (Fitz-Enz, 2000). In addition, professional development can improve the confidence, satisfaction, and retention of current staff. Out-of-School Time (OST) providers, adults who work with youth ages 5 – 18, who have professional development opportunities have reported feeling more confident and more satisfied with their jobs (Center for School and Community Services, Academy for Educational Development, 2002; Girls Inc., 1996). Advocates propose that a career development ladder would increase the professional status of OST providers and, correspondingly, staff retention rates (Brown, 2002). Findings of a recent pilot study indicate that a wage ladder in early childhood education had positive effects on staff retention and morale. Although there are some distinctions between early childhood, OST, and workforce development (most obviously, the age of the children served), early childhood education initiatives may serve as models for the OST and workforce development fields. Recently, there has been some evidence to suggest that including a career ladder is a key component for system building in OST (National Institute on Out-of-School Time & Academy for Educational Development Center for Youth Development and Policy Research, 2003).

One such example is an early childhood initiative in Washington state. The Washington State Early Childhood Education Career and Wage Ladder is a pilot project run by the Economic Opportunity Institute. It uses public funding to tie salary increments for childcare workers to continuing education, experience, and responsibility. Its goals are to professionalize the status of childcare workers, increase job satisfaction and retention, and improve the quality of childcare. Evaluation results from the pilot study showed that childcare workers in centers with career ladders had higher job retention rates, exhibited higher morale, and were more likely to complete higher education courses than childcare workers in centers without career ladders (Brown, 2002). For more information on this project and its results, visit the Economic Opportunity Institute.

In addition to the higher morale, confidence, and job retention for the organization, professional development benefits the youth in several significant ways. These benefits include a consistent caring adult, improved practice, improved program quality, more youth involvement, more networking and information sharing between organizations, and better outcomes. Research has consistently shown the importance of positive staff-child relationships in helping youth reach desired outcomes. (Bouffard & Little, 2004; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; McLaughlin, 2000; Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996; Tomlan, Pittman Yohalem, Thomases, & Trammel, 2002). Early childhood studies have shown quality of care that children receive is associated with the practitioner’s educational attainment and participation and that that quality of care is in turn linked with children’s more positive social and cognitive outcomes (Bouffard & Little, 2004; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2001; Norris 2001). Another study found that elementary school students improved their reading and math performance after their teachers attended a professional development program (Westat & Policy Studies Associates, 2001). In the North Carolina Quality Enhancement Initiative for school-age programs, standardized observations conducted before and after the professional development component showed significant improvements in program environments and staff-child relationship quality. The programs which initially scored lowest in a set of quality indicators, including no state licensure and directors without college degrees, showed the most improvement (Hall & Cassidy, 2002). This is especially important for workforce development, as there is currently no licensing and many practitioners do not have a four-year degree.

Finally, an evaluation by the National Training Institute (NTI) for Community Youth Work at the Academy for Educational Development found youth workers who had completed a positive youth development course:

1. Integrated youth development knowledge and theory into their programming
2. Involved youth participants in the process of running the program
3. Learned a common language of youth development, allowing them to communicate more effectively
4. Increased their networking and information sharing with other providers.

In fact, for over 70% of the youth workers, the course had a positive impact on the practices they used in their program. (Center for School and Community Services, Academy for Educational Development, 2002). In the Washington, DC course, several programs worked together following the course to attend a youth peace conference and provide cross-trainings and referrals.

All in all, the research shows that professional development of youth service practitioners can have positive effects on the organization, the program quality, and most importantly, the outcomes for the youth themselves. This research included organizations working with children and youth in a variety of settings and included studies with pre- and post- measures and outside observations. Some of the information came from government agencies, private research firms, and universities. No matter the method or the source, it all leads to one conclusion, professional development matters for practitioners, programs, communities, and youth.

Resources & References

Association for Child and Youth Care Practice, Inc. (2002). The North American Certification Project: Competencies for professional child and youth care work personnel. Milwaukee, WI: Association for Child and Youth Care Practice. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.acycp.org/cyc competencies .pdf .

Blackorby, J. & Wagner, W. (1996). Longitudinal post school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the national longitudinal transition survey. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 399-413.

Bouffard, S. & Little, P. (2004). Promoting Quality Through Professional Development: A Framework for Evaluation. Boston, MA; Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Available at: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/issuebrief8.html.

Brown, J. (2002). Washington State Early Childhood Education Career and Wage Ladder pilot project: Evaluation report of Year 1. Seattle, WA: Economic Opportunity Institute.

Center for School and Community Services, Academy for Educational Development. (2002). BEST strengthens youth worker practice: An evaluation of building exemplary systems for training youth workers. New York: Author. Available at: http://nti.aed.org/assets/doc/BEST-final_report.doc

Costley, J. (1998). Building a professional development system that works for the field of out-of-school time. Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time, Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College.

DiLorenzo, P. & Richards, C. (2006). Supporting Foster Youth To Achieve Employment and Economic Self-Sufficiency. Washington, DC. National Collaborative on Work and Disability for Youth.

Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. (2001). Youth development policy: What American foundations can do. Waltham, MA: Andrew Hahn.

Fitz-Enz, J (2000). The ROI of Human Capital. New York, NY. AMACOM

Gambone, M. A., Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2002). Finding out what matters for youth: Testing key links in a community action framework for youth development. Philadelphia: Youth Development Strategies and Institute for Research and Reform in Education.

Girls Inc. (1996). Becoming Strong, Smart and Bold: Girls Incorporated program directors as change agents. Indianapolis, IN: Girls Incorporated National Resource Center .

Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (2002). Strategies for developing a 21st century youth services initiative. Bethesda, MD: Goodwill Industries International, Inc.

Hall, A. H., & Cassidy, D. J. (2002). An assessment of the North Carolina School-Age Child Care Accreditation Initiative. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17, 84–96.

Loprest, P. & Maag, E. (2003). The relationship between early disability onset and education and employment. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved March 2, 2004 from http://www.dri.uiuc.edu/research/p03-05c/default.htm.

McLaughlin, M. W. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.

National Center on Workforce and Disability/Adult. (2002). Tips for one-stop staff to assist customers in managing social security disability benefits. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=5.

National Center on Workforce and Disability/Adult. (n. d.). Legal Requirements & Guidelines. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.onestops.info/category.php?cat_id=3.

National Clearinghouse for Youth Development Practitioner Apprenticeship Programs. (n. d.). Lessons learned. Baltimore, MD: Sar Levitan Center, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.levitan.org/ydpa/LessonsLearned.htm.

National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth. (2002). Literature review: Frontline worker. What’s missing? Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.ncwd-youth.info/assets/literature_Reviews/frontline_worker_summary.pdf .

National Institute on Out-of-School Time, & Academy for Educational Development Center for Youth Development and Policy Research. (2003). Strategic plan: Building a skilled and stable out-of-school time workforce. Wellesley, MA: Author.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 457–492.

National Service Inclusion Project. (n. d.). Frequently asked questions: Etiquette. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.serviceandinclusion.org/index.php?page=etiquette.

National Training Institute for Community for Youth Work (n. d.). online registration form. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://nti.aed.org/Registration/.

National Youth Leadership Network. (2002). Survey of youth with disabilities: Priority factors in building a successful life. Report presented at Capital Hill Forum on “What youth with disabilities say is important for building a successful adult life.” Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2002/fb072902.htm.

Norris, D. J. (2001). Quality of care offered by providers with differential patterns of workshop participation. Child & Youth Care Forum, 30, 111–121.

Pearson, S. (2001). Preparing youth with disabilities for an increasingly technical work place. Briefing from Capital Hill Forum, January 26, 2001. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/2001/fb012601.htm

Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D. L. (1996). Quality of care at school-aged child-care programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and parent perspectives. Child Development, 67, 2434–2445.

Sum, A. and Khatiwada, I. with Palma, S. and Peron, S. (2004). Still young, restless and jobless: The growing employment malaise among U.S. teens and young adults. Boston, MA: Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University. Retrieved March 2, 2004 from http://www.nyec.org/CLS&JAG_report.pdf .

Swanson, C. B. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn't? A statistical portrait of public high school graduation, Class of 2001. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved December 15, 2005 from http://www.urban.org/publications/410934.html.

Tolman, J., Pittman, K., Yohalem, N., Thomases, J., & Trammel, M. (2002). Moving an out-of-school agenda: Lessons across cities. Takoma Park, MD: Forum for Youth Investment.

U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. (2000). Youth Development Practitioner Apprenticeship (Training and Employment Information Notice No. 8-00). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 25, 2003 from http://www.ows.doleta.gov/dmstree/tein/tein2k/tein_08-00.htm.

US Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. (1998). Overview of the Workforce Investment Act (Public Law 105-220). Washington, DC. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/WIA/Runningtext2.htm.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Westat, Inc. (1994). The 1993 Summer Youth Employment and Training Program: Study of the JTPA Title IIB Program During the Summer of 1993, Final Report. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Westat, & Policy Studies Associates. (2001). The longitudinal evaluation of school change and performance (LESCP) in Title 1 schools. Final report, volume 2: Technical report. Rockville, MD and Washington , DC: Author. Available at http://www.policystudies.com/studies/school/lescp.html.

Youth Development Institute. (1998). Core Competencies of Youth Work. New York, NY: Fund for the City of New York. Retrieved on December 15, 2005 from http://fred.fcny.org/ydipubs/pubs/core.pdf .