The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.
HFRP
> Out-of-School Time
> OST Database & Bibliography
> Database
> Young Women's Leadership Alliance
A Profile of the Evaluation of Young Women's Leadership Alliance
Profile Information
- Full Text (HTML)
- Request reprint permission
- How to cite
- About the OST Database
Program Description
| Overview | The Young Women’s Leadership Alliance (YWLA) is an after school program for girls in three high schools in Santa Cruz, California, that promotes leadership through youth–adult partnerships and action research. Participants take a leading role in identifying concerns and advocating for educational equity (regardless of gender, cultural background, or physical ability) in their own schools. |
| Start Date | 2000 |
| Scope | local |
| Type | after school |
| Location | urban |
| Setting | public school |
| Participants | high school students |
| Number of Sites/Grantees | 3 |
| Number Served | 256 over 3 years |
| Components | The program meets once a week after school for 15 sessions and is offered once a semester, twice each academic year. All 9th–11th grade girls at three primarily middle class high schools are invited to participate; recruitment is done at lunchtime and through posted announcements. In addition, teachers nominate girls they think have leadership potential. Some girls receive course credit for participation. Activities are divided into three components: (a) equity awareness – girls explore the concept of equity, defined as the ability to pursue goals without unfair barriers, through reflections on personal and observed experiences of inequity and experiential team-building activities; (b) research – girls define an equity issue at their school, then design and conduct a research project to study it, including writing research questions, creating a survey, writing a data collection plan, and then collecting, entering, analyzing, and graphing the data; and (c) social action – girls plan a social action project building on their research findings and then implement a public forum and/or small media campaign about the chosen equity issue to raise awareness and promote equity at their school. Two adult leaders run the program. Training for the adult leaders is provided in the educational approaches of cooperative learning structures, constructivism, informal consensus process, and experiential education. Staff training takes three forms: formal skills training, professional coaching, and individual professional development plans. |
| Funding Level | $131,665 in 2002–2003 ($600,000 including program development and evaluation) |
| Funding Source | United States Department of Education, through the Women’s Educational Equity Act Program |
Evaluation
| Overview | The study of YWLA seeks to identify program strategies and adult practices that build youth–adult partnerships, focusing especially on strategies to empower girls to create social change. |
| Evaluators | Jill Denner, Education, Training, and Research Associates |
| Evaluations Profiled | Young Women’s Leadership Alliance: Youth–Adult Partnerships in an All-Female After-School Program Young Women’s Leadership Alliance Final Performance Report |
| Evaluations Planned | Future evaluations will examine YWLA’s impact on program participants, the benefits of the equity activities to all students at the schools where the program is held, and changes in overall school and district policies and practices in educational equity resulting from the project. |
| Report Availability | Denner, J., Meyer, B., & Bean, S. (2005). Young Women’s Leadership Alliance: Youth–adult partnerships in an all-female after-school program. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 87–100. Education, Training, and Research Associates. (2005). Young Women’s Leadership Alliance final performance report. Scotts Valley, CA: Author. |
Contacts
| Evaluation | Jill Denner Education, Training, and Research Associates 4 Carbonero Way Scotts Valley, CA 95006 Tel: 831-438-4060, Ext. 264 Email: jilld@etr.org |
| Program | Steve Bean Senior Program Manager 4 Carbonero Way Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Tel: 831-438-4060 Email: steveb@etr.org |
| Profile Updated | February 3, 2006 |
Evaluation 1: Young Women’s Leadership Alliance Final Performance Report
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To describe the findings from 4 years of YWLA evaluation efforts that examined the following questions:1. To what extent were planned activities carried out as designed? |
| Evaluation Design | Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Pretest and posttest data were collected from 167 of the participants who enrolled. Evaluators also collected data from interviews, participants’ journal entries, and program leader logs to understand program implementation and impacts on participating youth. Evaluators assessed impacts on host schools by collecting data on the school climate from a random sample of 10% of students at the three school sites at three different points in time. This school climate survey was administered to entire classes of students at the host schools, which were recruited by asking for teachers to volunteer to participate, or by having principals assign classes to participate. Evaluators attempted to survey a representative sample of classes across grade level, academic level, and English Language Learner status. This resulted in a sample of 1,535 host school students. |
| Data Collection Methods | Document Review: Evaluators used weekly logs completed by program leaders to examine implementation of program activities. These logs provided information on whether activities were implemented as planned, factors that might have affected how the session was implemented, and leaders’ observations about the impact of the program on participants and the school. Evaluators also examined entries in girls’ journals regarding their favorite parts of the program, how they felt they had changed because of the program, and their plans for redressing social inequity at their schools. These journal entries were recorded during the program’s final session. Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews were conducted with 34 girls at the end of their participation in YWLA, with questions focusing on how the program could be improved and on girls’ perceptions of how they had changed as a result of the program. Surveys/Questionnaires: Participant pretest and posttest surveys were used to measure girls’ leadership confidence (i.e., confidence in one’s ability to take leadership roles in the school or make changes); assertiveness in school (e.g., willingness to ask a teacher to explain something the youth doesn’t understand); likelihood of pursuing a career in math, science, or computing; hope for the future; censoring oneself to please others; peer support for leadership (e.g., “my friends tell me I’m too pushy”); future confidence (e.g., “the things I am learning now will help me get a good job”); future barriers (e.g., “teachers don’t support my plans”); marketable skills (e.g., creating a computer database); and attitudes toward females (e.g., “boys are better leaders than girls”). The surveys were administered at the beginning and end of each program semester. Evaluators surveyed 10% of students at each school about the school climate related to educational equity. Surveys were administered in January 2001 (prior to program implementation), January 2002, and January 2004. Students responded to 32 questions about educational equity, which were combined into two scales. One scale measured perceptions of General Equity at the school (e.g., people from different backgrounds get along with each other, teachers ask students what they think about problems in the school, all classes are welcoming to all students). The other scale measured perceptions of Gender Equity (e.g., it is more important for boys than girls to do well in school, and sexual harassment of girls by other students is a big problem). |
| Data Collection Timeframe | Data were collected between 2001 and 2004. |
Findings:
Formative/Process Findings
| Activity Implementation | Across the four semesters in which program leader log data were collected, all planned activities were completed during an average of 6 of the 15 sessions. When activities were not completed, it was usually due to time constraints. The program leaders recorded several challenges to girls taking on leadership roles in the program: low attendance, girls arriving late or leaving early, a few girls dominating the conversation, and disruptions by other girls. Many participants said in interviews that the program moved too slowly in the beginning and that they had inadequate time to work on their social action projects at the end of the program. Some interviewees wanted more leadership from the adults, who they felt sometimes allowed the discussions to go on for too long or to get off track. They were annoyed by this when they felt that it took time away from other tasks and affected the quality of the work they were able to do. Participants suggested condensing the “touchy-feely” and “teamwork” aspects of the program and expanding the social action piece. Many youth interviewees wanted to increase the impact of the social action project on the student body. Participants thought that finding a way to reach more students and to create a more substantial intervention based on the findings of their research—such as doing an assembly for the entire school—might help to achieve this goal. |
| Recruitment/Participation | A total of 256 girls enrolled in YWLA over six semesters, including 17 girls who participated in more than one semester. Of those, 169 completed the program, with 11 girls completing more than one semester. The average number of sessions completed by participants across schools and semesters was 12.46. Many participants said in interviews that they were disappointed by the attrition rate in their groups. They suggested that program leaders consider ways to improve retention of participants, and some suggested condensing the first part of the program, saying that they thought some girls were “bored” by the equity awareness activities in the first few sessions. Based on their survey responses, those who dropped out of the program were less likely to speak English consistently at home (p < .05), more likely to have peer support for leadership (p < .05), and less likely to censor themselves to please others (p < .05). Nonwhites dropped out of the program in higher proportion than white students. Nonwhites made up 30% of the students who completed the program, and 42% of those who dropped out (p < .05). Notes in the logs suggested girls who dropped out had too much school work and work (employment) responsibilities. The program leaders also noted that they were told girls could not return due to family responsibilities, other after school activities such as sports, a family move, being unhappy with the research topic selected, and medical issues. |
| Satisfaction | According to the final session journals, girls’ favorite parts of YWLA were working in groups, making new friends, and meeting new people, as well as doing the social action project. |
Summative/Outcome Findings
| Community Development | Across schools, the classroom students who were surveyed reported significantly higher levels of both General Equity and Gender Equity in 2004 than they did in 2001 (p < .05). However, these improvements were true only for male students and White students, not for female or non-White students. At all three schools, the percentage of students who reported observing unequal treatment toward themselves or someone at their school declined between 2001 and 2004. When asked if they knew someone who had experienced unequal treatment in 2004, 23% said yes, down from 33% in 2001 (p < .05). The most common examples of unequal treatment included favoritism and unequal enforcement of rules by teachers, peer teasing, and exclusion from programs, clubs, and classes. Across semesters, interviews with participants suggested that YWLA’s social action project had only a modest influence on the student body. Most said that they succeeded in raising awareness and may have had a temporary influence on a subset of the students’ belief systems and behaviors. Many recognized that without further intervention or action, this effect could only be temporary. In general, participants were satisfied with this level of impact, feeling a sense of pride in the work that they had done and empowerment in having had at least some effect on their school. However, some wished that they could have had a larger impact and said that this was due to an increased awareness on their own part of the scope of the given social problem at their school. |
| Youth Development | There were significant improvements from pretest to posttest in participants’ leadership confidence (p < .001), assertiveness in school (p < .001), not censoring oneself to please others (p < .05), peer support for leadership (p < .05), and marketable skills (p < .001). Interviewees said they increased their computer, survey, and research skills and further developed their leadership, assertiveness, and communication skills due to participation in YWLA. They also said they were less likely to judge others, especially based on appearance; were more accepting of students that were not a part of their social clique; were more open-minded in general; and less tolerant of hurtful or unfair treatment by others, both toward themselves and towards others. Behaviorally, they cited being more assertive, comfortable expressing their opinions, comfortable in their school, likely to speak up when they disagree with another’s comments or actions, respectful of other people’s feelings and opinions, and able to work as part of a team and act effectively as a leader. According to journal entries, the areas in which participants believed they changed the most as a result of the program were in being more outspoken, assertive, and able to stand up for what they believe in. In the journal entries, participants most commonly reported that in the future, they intended to raise awareness about equity issues, speak their minds, and stand up for others. |
Evaluation 2: Young Women’s Leadership Alliance: Youth–Adult Partnerships in an All-Female After-School Program
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To answer the following questions: (a) What program practices did adults use in this setting to build supportive partnerships with girls, and (b) were these practices effective in engaging and empowering the girls? |
| Evaluation Design | Non-Experimental: Analyses were conducted on a variety of program documents, observations of program sessions and special events, and in-depth interviews with program participants and staff over five semesters of the program’s operation. The data come from 164 girls who completed the program (68% Caucasian, 21% Latina, 8% Asian American, 5% African American). This included 19 girls who participated in the program multiple times. |
| Data Collection Methods | Document Review: At the last program session of each semester, each girl wrote in her journal a response to the question: “What was your favorite part of YWLA? Why?” Their responses were only shared out loud with the group if the girls chose to do so, but all responses were analyzed to understand which aspects of the program girls found useful. Data were also collected from weekly logs kept by the two staff members describing leadership behaviors observed, especially relating to how girls influenced program structure and voiced opinions. Interviews/Focus Groups: One-on-one interviews were conducted with 34 girls selected to represent a range of grades, leadership styles, and race/ethnicity. Questions centered on perceptions of the purpose of the program, things done in the program that were surprising or that the girls had never done before, comments about program leaders and guest speakers, and whether the program made them feel more like a leader. Interviews were also conducted with both staff members to assess partnerships between them and the girls, strategies used to create effective partnerships, similarities to and differences from teaching and mentoring, changes in the ways they worked with girls over the course of the program, and unique issues relating to partnerships specifically with girls and women. Observation: Observations were conducted approximately twice a month over the five semesters, looking at interactions between youth and adult leaders, and the leadership styles of each. |
| Data Collection Timeframe | Data were collected between 2001 and 2004. |
Findings:
Formative/Process Findings
| Staffing/Training | The data analysis led to the identification of seven effective practices, which were grouped into two overarching strategies for building youth–adult partnerships and empowering female youth: (a) guidance, not instruction, and (b) creating a place to be authentic. The first practice that was identified under the “guidance, not instruction,” category was adults providing girls with the tools and skills to make group decisions. For example, adult leaders guided girls through a decision-making process about their research topic by asking each girl to write down at least one equity topic and share that idea with their group. Girls voted to determine the top three choices, which they then evaluated, scoring them on relevance and interest. The girls went through a process of consensus decision-making with the topic that got the highest score, in which each girl had a chance to say whether that topic was acceptable and to voice her concerns. The second practice identified under “guidance, not instruction,” was promoting a safe environment in order to build trust among the girls and between girls and adults. Staff accomplished this by asking girls to write ground rules, giving unconditional positive regard and support, modeling positive feedback, and having high expectations of the group. Encouraging the participation of quieter girls was also an important component of this practice, which was accomplished by forming smaller working groups that included a peer facilitator who could draw out the quieter girls. The third practice identified under “guidance, not instruction,” was focusing the program on a topic that the girls were interested in and that emphasized the importance of voice. The adults brought knowledge about the social and historical contexts of equity, whereas the girls brought their experience analyzing social contexts, knowledge about the most pressing equity issues at their school, and a personal commitment to create change. The fourth practice identified under “guidance, not instruction,” was adults legitimizing and supporting a range of leadership styles among the youth. Adults identified a range of styles and roles, including being a critical thinker, teacher, anchor, peacemaker, or supporter. Girls led group discussions and decision-making but also adopted less typical leadership roles, such as time-keeper, “vibes watcher,” and scribe (recording what others said). This allowed all girls to be leaders—even those who did not feel comfortable facilitating a group. Adults used questions to facilitate trying out new or challenging roles without telling girls what to do, such as “What are you going to do if girls have a hard time listening to you or to other girls in your group?” or “What did you notice worked well when you facilitated before?” Interviews revealed that the four “guidance, not instruction,” practices were effective in creating youth–adult partnerships. Though some youth reported a desire for more structure and adult decision-making, both girls and adults noted that these practices created an interdependent form of leadership in which different leadership roles were supported, enabling a focus on social justice and equity, which created an environment in which both youth and adults were able to challenge each other. The first practice that was identified under “creating a place to be authentic” (i.e., a place where girls feel safe enough to speak up about thoughts and feelings, to listen and challenge the views of others, to ask for opinions, and to have concerns and ideas taken seriously) was to create opportunities for all voices to be heard. For example, adults asked quieter girls direct questions rather than posing a question to the group. They also introduced a decision-making process in which each girl had the chance to voice opinions and decisions became final only when everyone was in agreement. The second practice identified under “creating a place to be authentic” was to create a norm of respectful disagreement between the girls and between girls and adults. Adults allowed youth to voice disagreement and provided activities where girls learned and practiced being assertive, voicing opinions in ways to minimize the risk to relationships they valued. The third practice identified under “creating a place to be authentic” was to create opportunities to talk about personal challenges and interests. For example, each program session started with a fun question created by one of the girls that was designed to help the adult and youth leaders to get to know each other (e.g., “If you were a cartoon character, what would you be and why?”). In addition, adult leaders and guest speakers described their personal experiences with inequity and the ways they had addressed them. Interviews, logs, and journal entries revealed that the four “creating a place to be authentic” practices were essential in building youth–adult partnerships that empowered girls. While these practices took time, the data suggested the importance that both youth and adults placed on being authentic and being accepted for who they are and building relationships that included both respectful disagreement and listening. |