An Evaluation of 4-H’s Approach to Teen Programming

by

Katherine Watier

Stephanie Schamess, Sara Levine, Tom Waskiewicz

SS

May 1999

An Evaluation of 4-H’s Approach to Teen Programming

Abstract

4-H has a long history of creative programming for teenagers and the organization is unique in the advisory role it gives teen members. It is one of the few (if not possibly the only youth organization) that has youth as equal partners on all its governing boards. Teenagers, however, remain the most likely to drop out of the program. In an effort to discover the reason behind the high teenage drop out rate, a historical analysis was conducted on how adults in the government and local communities have influenced 4-H and how the resulting programming has impacted and been modified by teens. The historical analysis was created to trace the social context in which 4-H arose and to provide a background for the reasons that the program is unable to retain older youth. By interviewing teens in Maine and Massachusetts who are currently in 4-H and teens that had left 4-H, it became apparent that the teens’ reasons for leaving were not due to a rigidity in the program. Their responses show that while their reasons differed slightly by state, teens mostly left 4-H due to time-intensive involvement with other activities or due to a lack of awareness about the program's image and focus. Most of the teens who dropped out were either under the impression that 4-H was largely an agricultural activity or they were unaware of the opportunities available through 4-H, and therefore got bored and left the program. Based on the results it was suggested that the 4-H teen program in both states focus on educating the teens and adult leaders of teen groups within the program about the variety of available programming. An effort also needs to be made to update the 4-H image without denying 4-H's agricultural roots. The most effective means to do this is through the creation of a data about the "4-H Family" (4-H alumni) in an effort to connect the teens in the program to a larger community.

Introduction

Who are teenagers? In our society, teens are often seen as individuals that are somehow outside of the societal norm: frequently violent, immoral and uncontrollable (Ginzberg, 1960). Adults are fearful of the not-quite adults that live in their homes and communities. While adults realize that they bear the brunt of the responsibility for their children's moral and social development, most of the situations portrayed by the media show adults as fearful of their teenagers and uncertain as to how to control them. Yet, parents realize that teens' "proper" development is essential to the future of American progress. Faced by the reality that the proper development of their teenager is largely their responsibility, and the misconceptions of teenagers created by the media, adults most often look to social institutions (like governing bodies, the school, and extra-curricular clubs) for assistance in raising and socializing their teenagers. The extra-curricular club has been viewed by policy makers and adults as perhaps the most effective mean to socialize and control teenagers' behavior, and extra-curricular activities are often highlighted as the saving grace for troubled teens. "...The value of youth recreation services (both in urban depressed areas where culturally deprived youth are found, and in wealthier suburbs which have frequent instances of shocking youth vandalism and crime) has become increasingly understood and effectively implemented" (Kraus, 1964: 15).

A multitude of studies have been conducted to determine how the family, the workplace, and the school can best assist and guide teens, yet there has been a lack of studies analyzing the impact extra-curricular activities have on teenagers' development (Sibereisen, 1994). Despite the lack of formal research, the interaction that occurs in between the time spent with the family, work, and school has a significant impact on teens' lives and the controversy over the use of that time has dominated the social discourse over the last century. "We have failed to look at the interactive effects of differing definitions of the child-into-adult transformation provided by the family, the school, the workplace, and other social institutions..."(Ianni, 1989: 14). There is a rich history in this country of conflict between teens and adults over the use and definition of this "in-between" time and the teen's involvement in an extra-curricular club has often been the resolution of that conflict. Adult attempts to create different types of adult-supervised activities to fill this unsupervised time have resulted in the formation of youth character building agencies as the YMCA, YWCA, Boys Scouts, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Junior Achievement, and the 4-H program. While many of these activities were formed to engage teenagers, teens drop out of these groups more than any other age cohort (Hawes & Hiner, 1985; Joe, 1995; Wrenn, 1941). I have chosen to use the 4-H program to examine teen and adult conflict over teens' use of free time and to determine the reasons behind the high teen drop out rate.

I was in 4-H for fifteen years, and when I was a teen, I decided to stay with the program. My decision to stay involved in 4-H enabled me to benefit from a number of experiences like national trips and conferences. In addition to the benefits, 4-H served as a helping hand when I came up against hurdles in my daily life. The 4-H people with whom I interacted became a support system for me when I felt that I couldn't go to my family for help. Various adolescent development studies assert that teenagers often need an adult support system on which to rely. Since 4-H was mine, I am curious as to why other teens who joined 4-H as pre-adolescents chose to rely on a different support system.

I have chosen to focus this study upon 4-H due to its long history of youth work, its connection to the government, academia and other adult bodies, and due to its innovative approach and flexibility toward programming for youth. First and foremost, 4-H was developed through the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Extension system at the beginning of this century as a way of providing university research and resources to hard-to -reach rural communities, and it is still successful as a partially government-funded and university-based youth agency today. Its connection to the government meant that governmental social policy heavily influenced 4-H programming. It often resulted in changes in programming on the local level and shifts in the program's focus nationally. The program was also developed initially with input from the early founders of the study of adolescent psychology, and therefore, changes in psychological theory in relation to adolescence have directly affected the program. This report will examine the influence adolescent psychology has had on youth development programming and the formation of 4-H's approach to developing programming for teenagers.

Other sources of funding and support for 4-H have come from business and private foundation support, therefore the impact of changes in the economic environment of the country and the agendas of business in relation to youth have affected the program's focus. 4-H has an even more direct tie to adult and parental concerns through its reliance on adult volunteers to supervise the program's activities in local communities. Often these adults are parents of youth in 4-H, and their impact upon the kind of programming and quality of the experience is perhaps the most powerful influence on the type of programming teens receive.

4-H is also very progressive and was one of the first youth organizations to directly involve teenagers in the development of national and local programming. It has tried to maintain a balance between what adults feel is most beneficial for teenagers to be involved in, and what teenagers themselves want to spend their free time doing.

The fact that 4-H has been a popular youth development agency for almost a century is significant. If one was to pick a youth agency as a lens through which to view the changes in adult-teen conflict over the use of free time over the past century, focusing on 4-H provides a unique opportunity to view how the government, academia, the local communities, the changing social climate, and parents have interacted in an attempt to structure youth free time. The 4-H program's longevity suggests that there is something intrinsic to the program that allows it to adapt to the changing needs of different generations of youth and different social environments. However, the program has been unable to institute changes that would halt the number of teens (youth ages 13 to 19) who drop out of the program. The reasons behind this drop out rate have never been fully explored, and my goal is to investigate some of the possible reasons by conducting personal interviews with teens who have left the program and teens who have chose to remain. Is the teen disengagement due to personal reasons, or to factors that relate to the teen's family, community, peers, or aspects of the program? By discussing the trends of the program in the context of the larger issue of structuring teenagers' free time throughout the last century, it will be possible to determine how capable the program has been historically in addressing the needs and concerns of teens, and by interviewing youth currently committed to and disengaged from the program in Maine and Massachusetts this study will create an evaluation of 4-H's current effectiveness in meeting the needs of teenagers. More specifically, the teen's responses from the interviews will compared to existing theories about the predictors for a teen's disengagement from the program. By using the historical development of 4-H teen programming as a background for the interviews, it will be possible to determine if and how 4-H has been able to remain relevant to teens in the program, and whether it is still relevant to teens today.

Chapter 1

Historical Background

The creation of 4-H as a youth development agency, the social construction of childhood and the creation of the field of adolescent psychology were almost simultaneous, and they arose in part due to the shifting social and economic climate that characterized the beginning of this century. Due to increased industrialization of America during the early 1900s, a mentality of increased efficiency was fostered and embraced in the workplace and other social environments such as the family and community structures. The proper use of non-productive leisure time by youth became highly controversial and youth that were not engaged in meaningful activities were not only considered to be personally delinquent, but also a threat to the future productivity of America. While the industrialization of the workforce made it economically viable to remove youth from the workplace to make room for the influx of immigrant workers, it was also considered prudent to increase the future availability of trained workers by implementing mandatory schooling for youth. Instead of being valued for their current productivity, youth became "valued" in the eyes of policy makers and adults simply for their potential for future productivity and for the first time in American history youth were regarded as "separate" from adults and the rest of society. This separateness was supported and re-defined through institutions like juvenile courts, compulsory education, and child labor laws (Zelizer, 1985).

Youth were viewed by adults as embodying the future of American progress and as individuals who could be molded into ideal citizens, and a great deal of emotional energy was invested in their education and guidance toward that end. Mandatory schooling was based on this ideology. "By the 1920s and 1930s, educators looked to the developmental significance of adolescence, especially to the special aptitudes for self-direction and the clannishness of youth as a potent force for citizenship and assimilation, and with this in mind they tried to construct a broadly conceived school program" (Austin & Willard, 1998: 95-96).

Youth became pigeonholed into a role in which their primary goal was preparedness and adults worked hard to provide supervision and guidance for youth during this time of preparation and development. It was widely believed that youth were unable to negotiate this pre-adult time without adult assistance, and the professional institutions created during this period supported that notion. "Adolescence was constructed...as a separate and particularly fragile stage of physical, emotional, moral, and intellectual development that could be successfully navigated only through the intervention of virtuous adults" (Austin & Michael, 1998: 3). These virtuous adults in turn looked to the new research presented by adolescent psychologists for guidance concerning their role in the proper intervention into youth lives.

The most prominent of these psychologists was G. Stanley Hall (1911) whose research and findings about teenagers not only informed policy makers, but also provided adults with a vocabulary with which to label adolescent behavior. His research and characterization of adolescence as a period of "storm and stress” weathered various social upheavals through the century and remains prevalent today in discussions of teenage behavior. His research also indirectly encouraged adult ephebiphobia (a fear and loathing toward adolescents) by validating adult concerns about teenagers' innate irresponsibility and irrationality and cementing the adult belief that unstructured, unsupervised time provides a breeding ground for teens' natural (and socially unacceptable) tendencies to flourish (Astroth, 1995).

Unsupervised time was closely linked to youth becoming involved in gang activity and other immoral behavior, and adults felt that organized youth development agencies were alternatives to those type of youth affiliations (Ginzberg, 1960; Ianni, 1989; Smith, 1962). This cure for teenage delinquency was believed to be (and still is considered to be today) found through youth participation in organized activities that promote the acquisition of skills in preparation for adulthood.

This concern over monitoring youth's free time activities led to an explosion of youth character building organizations. Within a ten year period (from 1910 to 1919) the Boy Scouts, Camp Fire, Girl Scouts, 4-H Clubs, Junior Red Cross, Junior Achievement, The Pioneers of the YMCA, and the Girl Reserves of the YMCA were founded. The emphasis of these organizations "was the development of skills, sportsmanship, supervised competition, (as a replacement for) what Erikson refers to as the largely 'informal recreational life of the street, field, and playground'" (Borman, 1998: 122). These skills were taught in an adult supervised atmosphere in which the logical reasons for choosing a moral path (aligned with the social values of the larger society) were presented in hopes that the youth would naturally bend and choose the path presented (Palladino, 1996).

Unfortunately, the bulk of the discussion over the last century surrounding the use of youth's free time has not focused on those youth who choose the moral and socially acceptable path presented to them by adults via youth development agencies. Therefore, the history of the 4-H program only represents a small segment of the youth population as a whole. The youth that captured the national limelight were more often the youth perceived by policy makers and adults to be involved in activities which were dangerous and/or detrimental to proper social and societal development. Not only does the popular media highlight delinquent juveniles in its programming, but it has often been viewed as the instigator for that type of behavior (Committee of the Judiciary, 1955-56; Fornás & Bolin, 1995; Hawes & Hines, 1985). Ever since the radio became established as a popular leisure time activity, adults have felt that the media plays a large role in teenage decision making and behaviors. The teenage years is also a period of sexual awakening, and adult concerns about teenage sexual behavior have been heightened by the media’s portrayal of teen sexual interactions. Along with teenage sexuality, issues of teenage vandalism and violence, teenage drug use, and other activities that adults feel they are not able to control have found their way into national policy, educational campaigns and the media spotlight.

4-H has often been used as an alternative to teen delinquency by offering teenagers roles as productive citizens at an early age through community service activities. Most of the concerns about juvenile delinquency were triggered by massive social changes, and the first of which was the economic Depression of 1929. The economic pressures of the Depression forced teens to choose one of two options: either enroll in schools as a way to feel useful during this period of mass unemployment or leave home in an attempt to find work. The majority of adolescents turned toward the educational system. "High school enrollment was almost universal for adolescents of the period as the Depression forced many teens to remain in school because unemployment rates were so high " (Lynd, 1937: 171). For the majority of youth, the Depression reinforced the role of youth as student. However, the other subculture created by this economic crisis was that of teenage runaways, and it was the behavior of these youth that sparked adult concern.

Many of the four million young Americans ages 16 to 24 that were unemployed ended up leaving home and traveling to other cities and towns in search of work. Instead of facing parental disappointment at their inability to find work, they attempted to relieve pressure on their family's financial situation by becoming transients or runaways. "They figured maybe a job is open in some other section (so) they rode the freight trains, walked, anything to get there" (Palladino, 1996: 36). It was this population of youth that grabbed adult attention and created the notion that large segments of teenagers were vagrants or at the very least, youth in need of guidance. The Depression also led adults in policy-making positions to establish various social policy initiatives to control deviant and unsupervised youth, and to properly socialize the masses of immigrant youth into productive and moral citizens.

During the Depression, adults began to view youth as two distinct groups--those who successfully developed their potential by involvement with the school system and other character building organizations (like the 4-H), and those youth that disengaged from such institutions. Even though four-fifths of all high school students in the 1930s and 40s were regular participants in extra-curricular activities, social policy focused on the one-fifth not engaged in such activities (Austin & Willard, 1998: 97). Adults felt as though youth not engaged in school and other extra-curricular activities were heading toward delinquency and for the most part, the social policy initiatives throughout the rest of the century focused on this latter group.

As a federal agency, 4-H joined in the effort to catch transient youth and to provide support for families during this period of difficulty. 4-H was never hesitant to engage its youth in projects that supported its fellow citizens, and this is clearly shown in its involvement in the War on Poverty and World War II. During the Depression, 4-H suffered from lack of funds and as a response it relied more heavily on local initiatives and local funding for the development and implementation of programming. This reliance on local initiatives laid the groundwork for program flexibility that would later allow youth to be directly involved in the planning process.

4-H was well aware of youth' desire to be active participants in discussions over the future of America. The National 4-H Congress provided an opportunity for 4-Hers to discuss with their peers from across the nation their concerns and fears. During the war years, this discussion focused on the meaning of war and the part that youth could play in the resolution of the conflict. Often these discussions spurred the development of new project areas. The project to "feed a fighting man" or to fill one supply ship with food was one of the results of these discussions (Wessel, 1982).

It wasn't until the advent of World War II that teenagers found themselves propelled from a social position of non-citizen with little responsibility to a essential player in the future of America. Previously cut off from meaningful interaction with the world of work and adults, teenagers were suddenly asked to become more involved in the war effort. "War created exciting (and dangerous) opportunities for teenagers to prove themselves in the adult world. It opened the doors to work, training and adult independence that had been closed to high school age youth for years, and it changed national priorities" (Palladino, 1996: 60). No longer were teenagers told to just enjoy their youth and interact with their peers - they were needed as part of the American military force. The national focus changed to one that encouraged the teen to take on adult challenges and responsibilities. "Recruiting ads played on this image, as if war were just another challenge to manhood, like learning to drive or going out on a first date" (Palladino, 1996: 65). Those males who were previously labeled as delinquent (due to their desire to be adventurous and take risks) were now national treasures as enlisted men.

However, this direct involvement in the war only affected males over the age of 18. Younger teenagers found themselves in a no man's land: cut out of the excitement and largely ignored as the nation focused on its military involvement. They were told that full time education was their patriotic duty. The boys were encouraged to stay in high school to bulk up on science, math and technical courses as well as physical education classes in order to make up for the lack of trained boys who were joining the armed forces. Those teenagers under 18 who were involved in the 4-H war effort spent their after school "free" time raising money for war bonds, modeling planes and ships for the navy (which were used to train recruits) collecting salvage by the ton, and tending victory gardens or working on farms to raise food for the troops.

Throughout America, youth in 4-H became involved in the Food for Freedom program (an effort to increase food production to feed the soldiers) and every club showed impressive agricultural increases. They also joined efforts to collect scrap metal and many 4-Hers used money gained from their agricultural earnings to buy war bonds (Horn, 1998). Most interestingly, however, many 4-H groups developed forums for the young members to assemble and assess their feelings and fears about America's involvement in the war and to encourage discussions about politics and the appreciation of a democratic society. This emphasis on the personal development of the youth and the increased understanding of the US democratic process was not only progressive for its time, but would also lead to further development of citizenship programming like Citizenship Washington Focus.

As part of an effort to connect this new youth generation to the workings of its government and social order, 4-H (and in 1953) the National 4-H Club Foundation, with a grant from the Schwarzhaupt Foundation, created 4-H programming that enhanced 4-Hers' understanding and sense of citizenship. They were able to create Citizenship in Action grants for states to use to involve their 4-H clubs in their communities in citizenship activities. Out of these programs, 4-H curricula on democracy, emergency preparedness and life careers were created, leading to the development of short courses on economic and business subjects. Today this program is known as Citizenship Washington Focus, a program that runs throughout the summer at the National Center to teach youth about civic responsibilities, the structure of the legislature, and the history of the Capitol.

After World War II ended, adults discovered that during their war effort absorption they had lost control over youth "free time" behaviors. While they were distracted, the growing influence of youth culture and the mass marketing that shaped and supported it had created a generation of youth that were alienated from adult culture. Adults knew that they had to rein in the behaviors of their youth, but the rules had changed. "Having several years to bond with their peers and create their own private culture, teens were hardly inclined to give back the territory they gained" (Berson, 1998: 44).

This adult fear of teenage delinquency and teen culture also became a concern over teenage sexuality as the behavior of a group of Mexican Americans who called themselves "pachucos" took centerstage in public discourse. Pachucos modeled their teen culture after a masculine model that honored possessiveness of their territory and their pachucitos, and they gained a sense of pride in the protection of those possessions. When young military men made passes at the pachucos' girls, it was a recipe for trouble. "According to newspapers, zootsuiters had been beating and robbing young sailors almost for sport... The newspapers commended service men for ' ridding their community of one of its newest evils - those zoot-suited miscreants who have...added a very serious side to juvenile delinquency problems’" (Palladino, 1996: 77). The pachucos' insistence on wearing zoot suits was also a source of protest and potential conflict. By March 1942, the wearing of zoot suits was forbidden by the War Productions Board due to fabric rationing, and the wearing of the zoot suit from that point forward was seen by white servicemen as a pernicious act of anti-Americanism -a view compounded by the fact that most zoot suitors were able bodied men who refused to enlist or found ways to dodge the draft (Austin & Willard, 1998: 140).

The actions of the pachucos (and the violence that resulted from their interactions with soldiers) convinced the government that it was necessary to examine the problem of juvenile delinquency in an effort to control and regulate this segment of the population. In the first six months of 1943, 1200 magazine articles appeared that focused on juvenile delinquency alone (Palladino, 1996: 81) and most often the sources of teenage delinquency were connected to aspects of the teen culture and the failure of proper parenting, not to the social atmosphere of the time period. Concern over teenage delinquency provoked Senate hearings, television documentaries, research studies, government reports, and became the subject of Broadway musicals, movies, and best-selling books (Hawes & Hines, 1985:565).

It was largely recognized that one of the biggest evils that youth development agencies and adults battled against was the influence of the media. Sociologist Daniel Coleman addressed this issue in his report to the President's Science Advisory Committee in 1974. He wrote that:

The counterculture arose when adults lost control of the media- when, in response to market possibilities, films designed to appeal to youth, radio stations that played their music, and underground newspapers addressed to youth-oriented issues nationalized the peer group. (Ianni, 1989: 53)

This adult inclination to blame teen culture for the gap in understanding between the generations, and for the increase in juvenile delinquency was partially supported by Coleman's research and categorization of teenagers as possessing a distinct culture. Coleman's book, The Adolescent Society is one of the foundations upon which academics and policy makers have structured their thinking and actions about teenagers and their proper role in society. While his research helped to highlight the growing independence of youth in relation to adult input, he also gave support to the adult concern that too little adult supervision resulted in delinquency. "To put it simply, these young people speak a different language. What is more relevant to the present point, the language they speak is becoming more and more different" (Coleman, 1961:3). Increasingly, teens began to be unjustly punished for behavior that would have warranted lesser punishment for adult offenders. The courts increasingly confined "youth accused of crimes before trial, without a hearing on the mere suspicion that they might commit additional crimes. In contrast, pre-trial detention is authorized for only the most dangerous adults" (Males, 1996). Teens were incarcerated solely on the premise that they were thought to be somehow biologically predispositioned toward delinquent behavior and innately dangerous without a discussion of how improving the social factors that led to their actions might have prevented the delinquency.

Most social policy in relation to regulating teenage behavior (especially since the 1950s) was fueled by misinformation about the teenage condition and fear that teenagers were a potential threat to the future of America. The 4-H program has been able throughout its history to retain a close connection to the reality of the youth condition partially by ignoring the popular media conception of teenagers and retaining a faith in the creativity and capability of youth. Is flexibility and multi-layered organizational structure also makes it possible for the rejection of national program changes on the local level if they do not meet the needs of teens within the program?

Due to 4-H's "acceptable image" it was thought to be the perfect vehicle to address problems of juvenile delinquency and urban decay. In order to best meet the needs of urban youth, 4-H modified its programming by dropping the traditional club format with its enrollment rules and regulations (which included the president, vice-president structure, the absentee rules, requirements concerning the number of meetings per year, etc.) and implementing short-term, non-traditional, non-agricultural projects (Wessel, 1982: 207).

Part of the drive behind this creation of new programming was to cater to a new generation of youth that were thought to have short attention spans due to their heavy diet of television. There was a huge concern that youth not involved in youth development programs like 4-H were spending too much time digesting the messages that the media were creating. During the same time period in American history, Congressional hearings were held to address the issues affecting those youth (mostly considered delinquent) that were not in 4-H or similar programs. The power of this newly emerging force was highlighted in the 1953-60 Congressional hearings in which they noted that "it was almost impossible to raise healthy youth when movie directors, record producers, and comic book writers shamelessly ridiculed parental authority and encouraged teenagers to see themselves as a troubled class apart " (Palladino, 1996: 159). Not only was the media seen as leading teens away from adult morals, but it was also seen as encouraging anti-social behavior that was intrinsically detrimental to the future of America. This concern only grew with the introduction of television into the family home.

Some youth programs (including 4-H) decided to incorporate aspects of teen culture and the media into their programming. In 1957, a national push developed for more science education in federally funded programs including schools and youth programs. At Michigan State University’s Kellogg Center in 1959 4-H workers from across the country utilized a grant from the National Science Foundation to created the 4-H TV Science Club. This television series dealt with the "science of fire, animal skeletons, astronomy, plants, archaeology, physics, behavior, microbiology, meteorology, and chemistry" (Wessel, 1982: 258). This use of media as an educational tool help to counteract the notion that television viewing was directly linked to television delinquency. The adults who believed that the media were the sole division between youth and adult understanding were completely surprised by the actions of youth during the 1970s.

Youth culture during the 1970s became even more foreign to parents and adult policy makers. Popular assumptions about this period of time create a vision of all youth participating in Woodstock-like free love gatherings, protesting the Vietnam War, and staging sit-ins at college campuses. A major section of the youth population not only dissented from mainstream society through their lifestyle choices (including drug use) but they also engaged in educating and enlightening others about social issues. Often these outreach efforts became violent protests when youth began to demand that their voice and their concerns be heard.

The student protests of this period struck fear into the heart of policy makers and adults. For the first time, teenagers represented a formidable force due to their shared ideology and sheer number. In May, over 200 colleges throughout the US were reported to be in the throes of uncontrolled student demonstrations, concerned in most cases with issues of civil and minority rights, Vietnam and the draft, and faculty links with military and business research requirements. These and other events created a huge sense of fear of violence beget by teens directed at adults. No longer did adults feel that they had any sense of control over youth's actions and, often out of fear of youth violence, their retaliation to student protests was drastic and forceful. The most noticeable of these occurred on May 4, 1970, when President Nixon's National Guard gunned down student protesters at Kent State University. Four of the students died and 11 were wounded. This became the ultimate example of the gap between adults and the disengaged youth of this period.

It is interesting to note that during the 1970s with the war on Vietnam and the multiple examples of student uprisings; 4-H made it clear that the concerns of 4-H teens should not be muffled. Born out of that period was an emphasis on forums in which teens could talk about whatever concerned them without adult restriction. The 4-H program was often seen as a conservative organization, but during this period, it embraced controversial subjects such as drug and sex education. In 1973 delegates to National 4-H Conference asked for and got a frank discussion about abortion, teenage pregnancy, and sexuality (Wessel, 1982: 274).

Unfortunately, media attention on youth during the 1970s was not focused on the youth who were involved in 4-H (who were often directly improving the conditions of their communities), but on the teenagers who were heavily involved in drugs and anti-government social protests. This public concern in the 1970s about the impact of drug use on youth behavior translated into governmental anti-drug campaigns like the Republican "war on drugs" in the 1980s. Newscasts showed images of teenage drug addicts in an effort to frighten the public into increasing funding for prevention programs. Amazingly, "neither surveys nor statistics in the early 1980s revealed any serious teenage narcotics crisis" (Males, 1996: 30). The US Department of Health and Human Services showed that in 1992 only 11% of current illicit drug users were ages 12 to 17 (Fenwick, 1994: 214). While any drug use among youth is a legitimate concern, 11% does not warrant a national crisis. Unfortunately, the distortion and misrepresentation of the actual condition of teenagers' lives is a reoccurring event throughout American social history.

Adults have been beset by the fear of the potential for teen violence over the past century (Barson & Heller, 1998). The conviction that this violence will be directed at adults themselves has created a great divide between the generations. This sentiment was voiced by Richard Rodrigues, the editor of the Los Angeles Times who wrote, "Who are our youth? One minute they are innocent. The next, they may try to blow your head off" (Rodrigues, 1993: M1, M6). This headline speaks to the adult assumption that gang involvement is on the rise, and that this influence is part and parcel to the increase in youth violence. Yet despite a "barrage of media attention, today's youth are no more likely to be involved in gang activities. In cities like Los Angeles, estimates are that only 5%-10% of all young people is involved in gangs. Even in the most heavily gang-infested neighborhoods, the majority of young people are not gang-affiliated" (Astroth, 1995).

This fear of violence by teens is partially created by the prevalent assumption that adolescence is a period during which, due to physiological changes, the teenager is prone to making irrational, impulsive decisions that are often dangerous and is easily spurred on by peer pressure. This socially accepted notion is supported by organizations such as the American Psychological Association which asserted in 1993 that "anti-social behaviors tend to peak during adolescence' due to 'teenage development crisis'" (Males, 1996).

One of the reasons for this view of adolescence is due to the initial structuring of the field of adolescent psychology as a period of "storm and stress" (Hall, 1911). However, "even though normal teenagers were not studied by clinical investigators,' psychiatrist Daniel Offer and colleagues write of the earlier studies in which these stereotypes were fostered, all teens were simply assumed 'to have the same basic conflicts as psychiatric patients or juvenile delinquents' "(Males, 1996: 220). It is this type of thinking that has led to the creation of new psychiatric terms for adolescent behavior in order to label them as delinquent and in need of adult supervision and assistance that parents cannot provide. Since 1980 teen psychiatric admissions have increased 250%-400%, but one observer notes "it's not because teens are suddenly so much crazier than they were a decade ago"; in fact, the Youth's Defense Fund has suggested that at least 40% of these juvenile admissions are inappropriate (Astroth, 1995).

The teenage years are no more emotionally and psychologically unstable than any other period in life, and outbursts of anti-social and violent behavior are often due to economic and other life stresses rather than being due to a specific life stage. For teens that are not subject to stressful living conditions, empirical studies have shown that adolescents are no less rational than adults. "Applications of rational models are consistent in their reasoning and behavior...(and) no more based in their estimates of vulnerability to adverse health consequences than their parents" (Males, 1996: 34). Another study conducted by psychiatrist Daniel Offer and his colleagues over a span of thirty years with 30,000 adults and teens found that "85-90% of teens held the same attitudes and risk perceptions of their parents, were not alienated, think about the future and work, were coping well with their lives, and did not display psychological disturbances"(Offer, 1981, as cited by Males, 1996: 34). There are various other early psychological studies about adolescents that had questionable methods, yet the impact of these earlier findings are still felt in today's discussion of teenage behavior. As Astroth aptly commented, "Imagine how different our view of early childhood might be if child development were taught only through a focus on bedwetting, stuttering, and sibling rivalry. Yet, that's the approach taken when we teach and research about adolescents from a deficit, epidemic or crisis perspective" (Astroth, 1995).

Theories of identity development and "crisis" that characterize how society views teenagers have greatly impacted the lives of these youth. Teens' reactions to these characterizations add another layer to the discussion of how teen culture is formed, distributed and impacted by adults and how teens interact and resolve the inconsistencies within that created culture.

Chapter 2

The Uniqueness of 4-H Programming

After almost a century of viewing youth as developmentally deficient and socially deviant, there are demands for a new model of interaction among youth and adults. Sections of the population are beginning to question the prevailing social norm and ephebiphobia expressed by the media and legislators. While this new adult perspective regarding teenagers is emerging in academia, it has not resulted in the creation of legislature that supports youth. There is a branch of the government, however, that has had a supportive pro-youth stance for almost 50 years.

The 4-H program (under the auspices of the US Dept. of Agriculture) has a history of innovative programming and has often been the forerunner for supportive youth initiated projects. Not only has 4-H survived for almost one hundred years, but it is still vibrant today with almost six million youth involved in the program. The history of the program mirrors the national policy initiatives and social upheavals that have impacted American society.

During its earliest years 4-H was simply a tool for Extension (the land-grant university branch of the USDA that 4-H was founded under) to educate the greater community about agricultural advances that would increase productivity. Agents quickly discovered that it was easier to educate youth about new farming methods (who would in turn often educate their parents) rather than educate adults directly. This method has been proven successful over the years, and one of the strengths of the program has been the ease with which 4-H lends itself to community education. Formed as an educational experience held outside of traditional school hours, 4-H's focus of educating youth has never changed. Its methods of education are what make it unique as a youth organization and its focus on "learning by doing" early in its history was the herald of future youth education efforts. Hands-on, exploratory experiences have always been the mainstay of 4-H programming and throughout all of the societal changes over the last century that approach to learning has remained constant and due to its effectiveness probably always will.

The 4-H program also allows a great deal of youth initiative in relation to choosing individual club projects, the development of new projects, and new curricula. The structure of the club process itself (electing a president, vice-president, secretary and a treasurer) not only encourages youth leadership and involvement, but also allows for youth input. Moreover, for those youth not involved in a traditional club, involvement with the program often helps youth to create a support system and community outside of their family. This flexibility in relation to the focus of 4-H programming began early in the last century at the first National 4-H Camp held in Washington, D.C. in 1927.

National 4-H Camp represented the first time that youth and extension agents from Northern and Southern states met formally, and even though the structure of the programs in the North and South were different, a decision was made that both had merit and that both should continue. The South focused on club work that was organized principally through the schools, and the North organized its efforts through more community organizations, but both still accomplished the main objectives of club work, so therefore the structure was insignificant. This attitude of flexibility in relation to structure is one that was universally accepted through Extension and 4-H's history. In all the debates over the construction of formal policy, the ideology of the program is often the prevailing concern, and the structural differences are secondary.

At this national 4-H Camp, the 4-H pledge was also formally created. The problems of retaining members, recruiting for older youth and obtaining funding were also discussed. 4-H's solution to funding problems utilized youth involvement in a strategy that was unheard of in other youth organizations. In order to increase federal funding, three 4-Hers from Maryland testified before Congress about their club experiences. The personal commentaries of the youth worked, and in 1928, Congress passed a bill that provided an increase of 1.38 million dollars a year for club work. This was perhaps the first time that the skills and experiences of youth themselves were used on a national level to improve the quality of the programming.

National 4-H Camp laid the groundwork for National 4-H Conference, which was founded with the intention of utilizing youth as resources in programming. National 4-H Conference went through program changes in order to involve the teenagers more intimately with the planning process. In 1969, 4-Hers attending National 4-H Conference were selected for their ability to evaluate the 4-H program and to return home to participate in program planning. While the teen attendees retained the opportunity for the delegates to meet with Congressional members (mostly due to 4-H's constant desire for more funding), starting in 1977 delegates selected to this and future conferences became heavily involved in program planning and public relations. These 4-Hers would meet in consulting groups to discuss the pros and cons of the 4-H program and would create concrete action plans that would be brought back and implemented on the local level. The emphasis of National 4-H Conference today reflects this change with a greater emphasis on working on improving the 4-H system and delegates chosen for their leadership and commitment to community service.

Part of 4-H's success lies in its ability to rapidly change its program's focus when the environment demands a different approach. This ability is due to 4-H's introspective nature and to the program's multi-layered leadership design where the local level has as much decision making power as the national level, and where youth have as much leverage in program development as do the national program leaders. Extension's Committee on Policy (ECOP) and federal Extension leaders are constantly reevaluating the program and offering new suggestions for programming. Most of the energy for these evaluations and suggestions are created by the delegates to National 4-H Conference. The establishment of National 4-H Conference itself created a close link between the needs of the youth and the needs of the program. The youth-adult cooperation developed through this Conference has blossomed, resulting in further youth involvement with national programming today, and currently 4-H members serve on all 4-H management boards.

In relation to youth involvement in programming, 4-H has been involved in groundbreaking work well before the rest of the academic community. The 4-H program, for example, was quick to use the "theory of loose parts" in its program development. This theory was created during the 1960s which states "that youth learn most readily and easily in a laboratory environment where they can experiment, enjoy and find out things for themselves" (Nicholson, 1972). Simon Nicolson, a member of the University of California at Berkley’s team working on an interdisciplinary approach to youth, the arts, technology, and social science highlighted this study in his research on the physical environmental needs of youth. The theory goes on to state that youth learn best when the curriculum gives top priority to where the youth live, lets the youth play a part in the process, uses an interdisciplinary approach, and establishes a clearinghouse for information. 4-H has been approaching youth programming from this perspective since its founding, and perhaps that is a part of its success. More directly, Nicholson called for a trend toward de-schooling and environmental education, and 4-H definitely has been focused toward a program that is heavily rooted in the natural environment. Yet 4-H also provides an educational experience that is not, in a sense, a traditional education. Interestingly, Nicholson viewed systems like Extension and 4-H as the educational trend for the future. "The prototype for education systems of the future are almost certainly those facilities that take youth and adults out into the community, and conversely, allow all members of the community access to the facility" (Nicholson, 1972). Obviously, the connection between community, individual, and social institutions was a part of the founding premise for the land grant institutions, and through 4-H the connection between the institution and the community has been strengthened.

The 4-H program has made significant changes in its approach to programming for teenagers in the last fifty years, and current initiatives include a Youth Leadership for Development group (a partnership with the Ford Foundation to explore youth-led social change as a viable strategy for youth development) and Youth in Philanthropy (an effort to empower youth to create a vision of how their organization can find and use resources to meet the needs of their communities). 4-H outreach efforts include Bridging the Gap of Isolation, which is a joint youth/adult initiative to discover ways to strengthen youth development opportunities for youth in rural and isolated areas. Similarly, the 4-H Youth Technology Corps was recently formed as a concept from National 4-H Conference as a way to unite youth. The resulting website is made for youth and by youth and includes a chat room and e-mail listservs. Staying current with new technology and new generations of youth is something that as a national organization 4-H has struggled hard to maintain. What are the specific qualities that have aided in this struggle? By discussing the specific qualities a youth organization needs to engage teenagers, concrete recommendations will be created as solutions to improve the teen retention rate.

Chapter 3

Characteristics of Successful Youth Organizations

While there is available information about the program changes in the 4-H program, and specific "success" stories provided by youth that were involved, there is a lack of quantitative research charting the impact of 4-H involvement on teenagers. Even more lacking is research into what holds some teens in the program for five years or more. Since there are no studies exploring the positive and negative effects of teen interaction with a youth group, the reasons for youth attrition in 4-H and other youth groups are largely unevaluated. This discussion will begin with a general summary of one of the few studies that examines the reasons for teens' engagement with youth groups on a broad scale, and finish with the results of the interviews conducted to determine the reasons for teens' engagement and disengagement from the 4-H program.

In her book, Urban Sanctuaries, McLaughlin reports on her interviews with six successful youth groups throughout the country, from which she compiled a list of qualities that make a youth group successful. This is one of the few comprehensive studies that deal with those aspects of a program that successfully support teenagers. The qualities outlined in McLaughlin's study are:

1. The ability of the program to "stretch" and change in relation

to the youth's interests

2. A committed and energetic adult advisor

3. A link to the greater community

4. The availability of future opportunities for development

through the program.

5. Physical safety and security of a meeting time and space

6. Real life opportunities presented within the group context

The ability to stretch is one of the most important aspects of a successful youth organization. In the 4-H program, the dropout rate of younger members is relatively low, but once the youth reaches junior high school years, other interests and social conflicts arise resulting in a large drop out rate for this age group. Programs (like 4-H) aimed at youth have to restructure their format for this age group, and instances in which youth are not given more say in the organization and more leadership in their own activities, often result in the youth losing interest and dropping out. "The successful organization's programs, activities, and missions are carried out in ways attuned to their adolescent members' values and goals"(McLaughlin, 1994: 3). Those programs that are adult dominated and structured around activities in which the youth has a limited role are largely unsuccessful with teenagers. In studies of successful organizations, it was found that the primary adult was universally willing to really listen to the concerns of youth and to allow the youth to set the rules for group behavior (McLaughlin, 1994:109). More than just in areas of group organization, the programming of the group's activities also need to be the responsibility of the youth members. A Girl Scout leader commented that, "If the girls stretch and the leaders can't stretch with them, they lose them" (McLaughlin, 1994: 53). This reality is also present for other youth groups as well, and the later responses of 4-Hers will show that members who stayed in the program through high school were working with adults who adapted the program to meet their needs and provided support for their dreams.

4-H began to stretch in the 1930s when it realized that the retention rate for its programs was low, and that teenagers were prone to dropping out of the program in higher numbers than before recognized. ECOP (Extension's Committee on Policy) made major program changes, changing the age limits for 4-H membership from 10 to 21 years to 9 to 18 years, and determining that programming should be developed for different age ranges: the 9 to 11, 12 to 14, and 15 to 17, with an entirely different program for older 4-Hers. "The key to the idea was to design programs to progress in accordance with the development of young people as they mature" (Wessel, 1982: 81). The development of community service oriented projects and safety projects also emerged during this time period as a way to entice older youth to stay in the program.

The increased interest in studying the needs of older 4-H members began in 1944 when Field Agent E. W. Aiton addressed the delegates at the annual Federal Extension conference in 1944. He noted that psychological characteristics of older youth were different. "Unless Extension leaders understood and appreciated that difference, little progress could be made"(Wessel, 1982: 114). Aiton reinforced the idea that older youth must be educated differently by stating that educators must " remember that they will develop best through actual experience and practice. We must give them plenty of rope, and no domination, but they will need counsel. We must encourage them as groups to tackle sizable jobs and attempt to solve basic needs" (Wessel, 1982:115).

In 1950, Extension received a grant from the Sears-Roebuck Foundation to conduct a two-year pilot program for young adults in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. One of the major findings was that older youth felt that adults held them back from accomplishing things. One of the obstacles to obtaining the autonomy that the teens wanted was the fact that many Extension agents were uncomfortable with the teens' request for clubs that involved mixed gender youth working together. Another similar program for young adults began in 1952 with a grant from the Fund for Adult Education. This was a three-year program in which older youth were engaged in discussions of public affairs. They found that the club approach in which 4-H historically worked was not effective with older youth. For the most part, teenagers were interested in issues like meeting a life-partner, choosing a career, and developing skills that would help them overcome the isolation of rural life, not necessarily the acquisition of skills related to traditional club projects.

Adults involved in successful youth organizations "believe that the genuine and active contribution of youngsters in building the organization also teaches them a sense of responsibility and ownership" (McLaughlin, 1994: 105). Teens in youth organizations will be very honest in informing the adult that the reason they chose to drop out of a program was directly related to the adult's attitude and role within the group. "The prime causes of disengagement were childish and boring activities, domineering adult leaders and a group size too large for close personal relationships" (Lipsitz, 1972: 178). It is obvious from this discussion that the adult leader can either make or break a group.

The research doesn't find that youth groups should be completely without adult involvement, but suggests that the role of the adult should be clearly defined as an advisory capacity. In fact, there have been numerous studies showing that having a supportive adult outside of the immediate family is a beneficial aspect of group involvement. Often that adult has been the saving factor in what would have otherwise been an unbearably stressful living situation. "Having a close relationship with an adult outside the family, such as a group leader, can be a decisive protective factor that insulates at-risk youth from some of the consequences of stress" (Silbereisen, 1994: 48). This same sentiment is mentioned elsewhere in publications focused on supporting the vulnerable child. Research on youth who escape long-term poverty suggest at least one common denominator: "These youth typically have opportunities for work and other forms of accomplishment as teenagers, and these opportunities extended and improved through adulthood...(and) when youth make sense of themselves in part by understanding how they are perceived by admiring adults, ...(they) are offered a kind of second chance, an opportunity to internalize the confident expectations of an adult other than a parent"(Weissbourd, 1996: 28).

The adult's firm belief in youth as a positive resource is also essential to a successful program. When these adults frame their personal and organizational missions they consider the youth they are working with as resources and they view the youth organization as an opportunity to develop these resources. "They see potential, not pathology" (McLaughlin, 1994: 96). Their focus is constantly on the needs of the youth. This focus takes precedence over goals of the organization, mission or activity. If in order to develop a youth's potential, it is necessary to plan an activity that is outside the focus of the organization, the activity is planned without many afterthoughts. From a management perspective, this seems to be a unpredictable approach, but allowing youth to modify the program has been proven to be successful time after time in youth organizations (McLaughlin, 1994). Steve Patterson (a successful youth leader) "believes that focus is perhaps the biggest problem for youth organizations because 'too many people try to develop a program that fits the kids into the program, instead of looking at the kids and developing a program for the kids’" (McLaughlin, 1994: 100). Many youth groups structure the program to fit the youth's needs by giving leadership for the group structure and activities to the youth themselves. By giving the youth in the organization responsibility for programming decisions, the program always stays fresh and relevant to the youth in the program. The 4-H program retains its relevancy to teen concerns through regional and state teen councils and through National 4-H Conference. The weeklong event held at the National 4-H Center in Washington, D.C. offers 4-Hers from across the country an opportunity to evaluate the 4-H program, decide on its focus for the next year and meet with their state Congressional representatives in order to tell them how the 4-H program has impacted their lives.

Many youth join a group in order to have an experience that includes real life experiences and opportunities to impact their surrounding community in a real way. Often these activities are ones that, because of their social situations, would have been unimaginable (McLaughlin, 1994: 107). Sometimes the unimaginable is sitting on a town meeting, traveling to a distant city, or possibly planning a community event or a conference. The unimaginable for many youth might begin when an adult truly listens to them and respects their ideas and supports their dreams no matter how big or small.

When youth have control over the majority (or all) of the group's leadership, they gain a sense that their actions are real and meaningful. "The desire of youth to be accepted on their own terms implies that the leadership and control of clubs and organizations should be in the hands of young people themselves, and that this should include the management of finances and facilities as well..." (Cotterell, 1996: 194). The number one reason youth provide for why they are involved with a group for an extensive period of time (in McLaughlin's research) is that they felt that they were recognized and accepted as individuals within the group. This recognition was important to receive from not only the adult mentor of the group, but from the other youth in the group as well.

Peer interaction is seen as an integral part of identity development, and Erikson's theory (1965) of group identity speaks to this necessity. Erikson suggests that adolescents seek group affiliation in their effort to "try on" different personalities before deciding on their own personal philosophy. The group that they join often presents a set of "provisional identities" which youth can utilize through the identification with a group or crowd. These groups, however, present characteristics of an identity in stereotypical form and eventually, youth must disengage themselves by declaring their own personal identities separate from the group context. If the personality characteristics developed by youth are still in accordance with the group mission and goals, youth may stay involved in the group context. If the identities developed are in extreme dissonance with the group context (and the group is unwilling or unable to adjust its programming to meet teens' needs) the teens will disengage themselves from the group. (Borman, 1998: 126)

Studies show that a positive affiliation with the values and goals of the group often lead adolescents to develop a greater attitude of acceptance towards others (Cotterell, 1996: 13). Developing a teen program that is flexible in relation to group structure and programming is rewarded many times over through both a stronger organization with high enrollments and a more positive impact upon the youth involved.

The interpersonal interactions among youth in the group and the sense of a community created by the group are also one of the factors identified by McLaughlin as most mentioned by youth for their reason to join and often to stay in certain organizations. "The interactions between a person and members of the network of others provide the social provisions which create community, confirm identity, and prevent loneliness" (Cotterell, 1996: 7). Moreover, today's society can be a very lonely place. Separated from adults for the majority of the day and discouraged from being involved in a community, many youth feel abandoned without a support system to fall back on.

One of the most important aspects of successful programs is an emphasis on support systems, which link adults and adolescents in a variety of formal and informal social networks. Being a part of a group or network of individuals can provide a number of benefits, but what appears most important is that the networks include both adults and youth working together on productive tasks and problem solving activities (Ianni, 1989: 269).

The larger connection to a community is paramount to a successful program. Youth need to be able to see the short and long-term positive effects of their actions upon the larger community. "The opportunities and activities that attract young people embody real responsibility and real work. They are concrete, result in learning of value to the broader society, and have clear significance to the local community...They require youth to be disciplined, committed, reliable and serious about an endeavor" (McLaughlin. 1994: 108). An important part of this linkage to the greater community is through the support of youth's role in school and formal education.

All successful youth development organizations encourage a love of learning whether it be through the acquiring of skills or through support to obtain a college degree (McLaughlin, 1994). The more successful programs, however, are those which support youth in their educational goals, whether through advice, assistance with filling out college applications, or financial incentives such as college scholarships. In the current economic situation in America, the road to personal success requires at the very least a high school diploma, and youth development organizations are aware of this reality and strive to make sure that their youth accomplish that academic goal.

In relation to current Extension studies about teens and 4-H, Associate Professor Emmalou Norland of Ohio State and Melissa Beaver Bennet, a Soil Conservationist from Urbana, Ohio discovered that there are "predictors" for an older youth's satisfaction with 4-H. Their findings (drawn from a questionnaire sent to 6, 963 Ohio 4-H teenagers) identified the following predictors for a teen's satisfaction with the 4-H program: a high quality 4-H meeting, high levels of responsibility, high commitment, positive parental involvement and support, positive experience with competition, an opportunity to work with younger 4-H members, and gender (girls were more satisfied than boys) (Joe, 1993). While this study did not impact the formulation of the current questionnaire used in my interviews of teens in Maine and Massachusetts, it will be interesting to note where the current study supports these predictors.

The Interviews

Methods

Interviews were conducted with teens from both Maine and Massachusetts who had shown a commitment to the 4-H program (through their involvement in state planning committees), and who had left the program. Names of teens who had left the program were provided by Extension agents from across both states who examined their enrollment records and provided names and phone numbers. The interviews of teens that had left the program were conducted by telephone, while the interviews of teens committed to the program were tape conducted in person during breaks in their monthly meetings. Both sets of interviews were tape-recorded. The Maine (ME) interviews were conducted at their monthly state teen conference planning meeting and the Massachusetts (MA) interviews were conducted during breaks at a meeting and interview session for teens who wanted to be a part of the planning committee for that state's teen conference. In both cases, teens were removed from their meeting for five to 15 minutes in order to complete the interview.

There were a total of 66 interviews conducted, 33 from each state. There were 21 committed teens from MA, 18 committed teens from ME, 12 dropout teens from MA and 15 dropout teens from ME interviewed. All but four of the teens interviewed were white, and all four teens categorizing themselves as "other" were part of the committed group from MA. Overall, there were 32 males interviewed and 73 females. Both states combined, females made up 69% of the committed group and 70% of the dropout group. The ages of all teens interviewed ranged from 12 to 18 with an average age of 16.

There were 14 questions asked with one additional question for the dropouts from MA and ME (related to their reasons for leaving the program); see Appendices A for full questionnaire. All but one question allowed for open-ended responses, and those responses were then categorized. For the sake of discussion, the categories created are shown as percentages of the responses. In many cases, multiple answers were provided, so the percentages will equal more than 100% for any given question.

Results

Impact of Adult

It was hypothesized that high levels of involvement in the group (through the amount of responsibility and the leadership the youth had in the group) would be predictive of a youth's decision to remain in the program. These factors were measured by determining the teens' attitudes about the adult interaction with the group and by determining the satisfaction level of the teens' interaction they had with group decision making processes.

Adults' impact upon the leadership of the group did not appear to be related to the reasons teens gave for their disengagement from the 4-H program. For the most part answers to a direct question about their feelings about adult involvement in their project or group were positive ("good", "OK", or "fine"). These responses were given by 72% of ME committed youth, 38% of MA committed youth, and 66% of the combined dropout groups. Over 1/2 of the answers from the committed youth were that they liked the interaction that they had with the adults involved in their project (MA= 52%, ME=50%), while the drop outs from both states combined only responded positively 7% of the time. The dropout teens' lack of enthusiasm over the adult's role in the group gives us a sense that the interaction was not relevant to the teen's reason for disengagement.

Most committed teens gave strong positive response when asked about the adult's involvement. Some of the committed youth expressed that their adult leader was not only supportive but also assumed a mentor or advisor role in their lives. More specifically, MA committed youth were more than three times as likely as ME committed youth to categorize their adult interaction as helpful (MA=47%, ME=11%). Only the committed youth from both states used words like "role model", "advisor", or "guide" (MA=33%, ME=4%) to describe their adult interactions. It was hypothesized that youth who left the program would do so due to an interaction with a controlling adult, but no dropout teens described their adult interaction as controlling. The youth who dropped out did not seem to leave for reasons due to a conflict with an adult leader, yet the interaction was also not enough to entice them to stay either.

Level of Responsibility/Involvement in the Group Context

Norland and Bennet found that a high level of responsibility and a high quality

4-H meeting were predictors for a youth's satisfaction in a group. It was hypothesized that an absence of those factors might contribute to a youth's disengagement. The results of this study, however, do not support these findings. Most teens interviewed (from the committed and dropout groups) were both in an equal group setting and responded with a positive level of satisfaction with their involvement, and yet some of the teens interviewed had left the program. Sixty-seven percent of dropouts and committed youth from both states were involved in a group setting, which was via an equal or democratic group process. When asked about their satisfaction with their involvement in the group on a scale of 1 to 5 the mean response for the teens who were committed was 3.8, while the mean response for the teens who dropped out was 3.2.

Amount of Family Involvement/Support

Another factor often attributed to a youth's continued involvement or disengagement from a group is the amount of family support the youth receives for his/her efforts. This is mentioned by both McLaughlin as a factor for a "successful" youth group, and by Norland and Bennet as a predictor for youth satisfaction in a youth group, and Most of the youth interviewed from both states had a high level of parental involvement. This factor has been used as a predictor for a youth's disengagement, yet the responses from this study do not represent a trend of less family involvement and dropout status. However, teens from Maine were involved for a substantially longer time before dropping out. Forty percent of ME teens were involved for five years or more before dropping out whereas none of the same group from MA had been involved for that long. Maine committed teens also had more of a familial involvement than those teens from MA. More teens from ME mentioned their family's involvement (ME=79%, MA=42%), and they stayed in program longer before dropping out then did their MA counterparts. By breaking the responses down further, it becomes clear that there is a relation between family involvement and the length of a teen's engagement with the program. Only 52% of the committed teens from MA mentioned some kind of family involvement versus 89% of the committed teens from ME, and the teens from ME stayed in the program longer before dropping out, with some teens staying in for up to six years. Ultimately however, a lack of family involvement did not prove to be a predictor for a teen leaving the program. More than a half of the teens in the dropout groups mentioned some form of family involvement (MA=58%, ME=60%) and none of the teens mentioned a lack of family involvement or support as their reason for leaving.

Program Flexibility

The youth program's flexibility to meet the needs of teens has been mentioned by McLaughlin as a prerequisite for a successful youth group. Certainly, throughout its history 4-H has demonstrated the ability to change and stretch its programming to meet the both the needs of the social climate and changing generational interests. One of the questions posed by this study is whether or not that flexibility and strength still remains in the teen programming in ME and MA, whether an inflexibility of programming is one of the reasons teenagers give for their disengagement. From their responses to the question "what type of teen is best suited to 4-H?" one gets a sense that teens from both the committed and dropout groups view 4-H as a somewhat rigid organization only catering to certain interests and certain types of youth. Sixty-four percent of all 66 teens interviewed responded that they thought there was a type of teen most suited to 4-H. The highest affirmative response to that questions came from the MA dropouts (92% of the responses) verse 40% of ME dropouts. Their responses show that there is a unified conception of what 4-H is and what type of teen would fit within the 4-H program (See Figure 1).

When asked about what types of teens they thought were suited to 4-H, the committed group from both states most often cited a sense of commitment and responsibility (23%). The next most frequent response was personality traits such as "outgoing" or "social" (18%), and "open-minded" ( 13%). For those who left the program from both states, the most common response was an interest in agriculture (33%), "outgoing or social" (15%), and "committed" or "responsible" (11%). By examining the responses further, however, we find that the idea that a prerequisite of an interest in agriculture was essential for 4-H was more prevalent with the responses from MA (58%) teens then ME teens (26%), and the word "committed" and "responsible" only occurred with the MA teens who left the program, and the response of "outgoing/social" occurred almost 5 times as often (25% of the responses) with MA teens who had left the program versus 6% of the responses from ME teens who had left.

For the teens committed to the program in MA the most frequent answer was "outgoing" or "social" (34% of the responses), and the response of "interested in learning" or "interested in agriculture" or “thinks 4-H is an agricultural program” was more prevalent in the ME teen's response (28%) than MA teen response (10%). As a whole, there was more of a variety of responses from the committed group of teens than from the teens who had left the program.

In an effort to get a sense of why the teens think some of their peers leave the program, teens from both the committed and drop out groups from both states were asked what type of teens they thought would not be suited. The teens from MA who left the program were more prone to answer that the teens who think 4-H is agriculture and/or don't like agriculture, animals, farming etc. were most likely not to be suited to the program (92%)and more than half (60%) of the teens who left from ME also offered that answer. The second most common response was that those who have a negative attitude would also not be suited with 42% of the drop outs from MA and 53% of the drop outs from ME offering that response. The combined drop out group also responded that those type of teens that might not be social or outgoing (19%) or who are city people (7%) might also not be suited to the program.

Committed teens were similar to the teens that dropped out in their responses about what type of teen would not be suited to the program. They thought that teens not suited to the program were not "interested in agriculture" (MA=76%, ME=56%), and teens with a "negative attitude" would also not be suited (MA=25%, ME=67%).

The response "not wanting to commit" was mentioned 21% of the time for both committed groups, and the teens from MA were twice as likely as ME teens to respond that those type of teens that weren't social (24% vs. 11%), or teens who weren't "open-minded" (24% vs. 6%) would not be suited to the program. Only ME teens responded that those type of teens most likely to not be suited to 4-H were those who weren't active citizens (17%). This response is interesting due to the high number of MA committed teens who are involved in either leadership (62%) or community service projects (48%) versus the 77% of ME teens in leadership projects and the 44% of ME teens in community service. In comparison, only one teen from MA in both dropout groups was involved in either one of those project areas. The lack of leadership roles may be due to lack of years involvement (though some ME teens were involved for 5 to 6 years before dropping out) but the lack of citizenship involvement is puzzling. McLaughlin highlights a connection to a larger community as one of the prerequisites for a successful youth group, and perhaps if there was more of an emphasis on community service projects for teens, there might be a higher retention rate.

By combining the teens’ responses to what teens they feel are or are not suited to 4-H, a pattern of lack of awareness of the variety of the 4-H program emerges. This misunderstanding is aptly illustrated by one teen’s comment “Well obviously if your not interested in what your club’s doing, you shouldn’t be in it…People who are more interested in animals and that type of stuff.” Alternatively, another’s response that a teen most suited is “People who care about animals and things like that 4-H is basically an animal place.” This lack of awareness was more prevalent in the dropout teens’ responses (MA=67%, ME=27%) then the committed teens from those states (MA=5%, ME=6%). This trend clearly illustrates that one of the major reasons that teens disengage from the 4-H program is due to a lack of awareness of the program and opportunities (beyond their club’s activities) that are available through 4-H.

Group Size

Lipitz's study (1977) focused on three factors for a youth's disengagement from a program: a large group size, domineering adult leaders, and/ or boring or childish activities. This study did not show trends to support the latter condition, where 44% of the drop outs from both states were in groups of 10-15 (the most common group size for most states) and dropouts were not more likely to be involved in larger groups. Only 7% of the dropouts were involved in groups of thirty or more while 15% of committed youth were involved in groups that large.

Teens interviewed from both states also did not describe the adult interaction as controlling. The first reason for disengagement from a youth program, however, (boring or childish activities) is most relevant to the responses obtained in this study (See Figure 3a and 3b). When the teens who had left the program from both states were asked why they left, both groups responded that they were too busy (MA=50%, ME=67%), they lost interest (MA=25%, ME=33%), and they had other activities they were more interested in (MA=17%, ME=13%). Finally, 33% of the ME teens mentioned that their only reason for leaving was that their leader stopped running the group.

Disregarding this last response, the reasons the youth gave for leaving the program were: another activity that is too time consuming (most mentioned athletics) and boring or not interesting activities. Almost one half of those teens who left felt that the program had become boring and uninteresting. Perhaps these teens were not aware of the range of other opportunities that they could be involved in through 4-H.

Teens' Initial Interest in the Program

The reasons for joining 4-H were different for the two states, and ME teens joined more for reasons to do with their family (40% of the ME responses versus 21% of MA responses) and while MA teens joined more for the program offerings (42% versus ME 33%) and due to a friend's involvement (MA=24%, ME=30%). Dropouts from both states joined for reasons more to due with a friend's influence (44%) then the committed groups (15%) and those in the committed groups joined more due to the program offerings (44%) versus the teens in the dropout groups (30%).

Discussion

Traditional held assumptions about the factors behind teens' disengagement from 4-H were not supported by this study. Issues such as teens' level of involvement, adult interaction, level of satisfaction with input in group decisions, and level of family involvement were not issues that teens' gave for leaving. All of the teens interviewed were satisfied with their level of involvement in group decisions, and the majority felt that the members were in charge of the decision making process. Most of the teens interviewed were also supported by their families and they were satisfied with their interaction with the adult leader in the group.

While the history of 4-H outlines the amount of flexibility inherent in the program's structure, some of the teens interviewed, (especially those who left) were unaware of the program options available to them. The trends that arise out of this study indicate that teenagers leave the program either due to a lack of awareness of the program's purpose, or a more intensive after school (often athletic) conflict. Some of the teens mentioned that they had reached a point where they have simply outgrown the support and programming that 4-H can offer them. In the words of one of the teens, "It's kind of like the Girl Scouts, you know, where you get a certain age and you're supposed to be too old for it...and then there are people who think it's just an animal thing. The people that I know think it is. Mostly they think 4-H is a kid thing." Amazingly, this response comes from a teen that has been involved for 11 years, she now enjoyed the travel opportunities available through 4-H, and her entire family supported her efforts.

Responses from the youth who left the program provide data suggesting that the youth that leave are not aware of the potential activities that they could have been involved in. Many believed their current experience with 4-H (via an agricultural group) was their only option within the program and therefore the program was not engaging enough to continue. This view was further confirmed by their description of the type of teen most suited to 4-H, with 42% of the MA teens and 20% of ME teens responding that an interest in agriculture was a prerequisite for involvement with the program. This lack of knowledge of the options could be related to factors including a lack of non-agricultural groups within their geographical area to join, or a lack of education about the options within 4-H. Those teens that were educated about the variety of programming options tended to stay with the program. A teen from Maine who has been involved for seven years commented that, "I thought when I first joined that I wasn't the type of person who should get involved in 4-H because I don't show any animals or anything like that, but then I found out able the other projects...".

The differences in the response from the two different states show that the traditional "northern" way of creating an after school 4-H group experience for a youth (versus the southern mostly in-school efforts) is still successful. However, it is most successful in regions that are geographically sparse, largely rural and for the most part deficient in other youth opportunities. In regions that are suburban or geographically denser, the traditional agricultural focus isn't enough to sustain a youth's interest. This, coupled with a lack of knowledge about future 4-H opportunities and a lack of parental involvement, discourages youth from sustaining a long-term commitment to the 4-H program. This lack of education is partially due to a lack of staff, and public visibility or press about 4-H programming. Since often the only visible 4-H presence is felt at local agricultural fairs, it is not surprising that youth within the program do not see other opportunities available to them.

The responses given from the question concerning "what type of teen is most suited to 4-H" gives us an interesting view into the type of programming offered in both states. For the teens committed to the program in MA the most frequent answer was "outgoing" or "social" (34%), and the response of "interested in learning" or "interested in agriculture" was more prevalent in the ME teen's response (28%) than MA teen response (10%; See Figure 1) As a whole, there was more of a variety of responses from the committed group of teens then from the teens who had left the program. MA has a longer history of teen social programming (specifically the State Teen Conference) and Maine has only recently (in the last six years) developed a statewide teen social program. Maine's population density is also a cause of the increased number of agricultural projects and lack of extensive teen social activities. Some of the reasons that the teens gave for their initial interest in 4-H were also related to their reasons for disengagement. The two main reasons given for joining 4-H were either a friend's influence or the program's offerings, and retaining that initial interest is essential to maintaining the teens' involvement.

A few of the teens responded that "city people" are the type of teens not suited to 4-H. Though infrequent, when coupled with the number of times that teens responded that "teens most suited to 4-H" are those interested in agriculture, it should raise some concern about the viability of the 4-H image. The concern over the popular image of 4-H as a primarily agricultural organization is well rooted in the history of the 4-H program, and many youth today still join the program due to an agricultural interest. With the high number of youth involved that live in urban, non-agriculturally based areas, however, there needs to be an effort made towards educating these teens about the other options that 4-H can offer them.

By sustaining teens' initial interest or reason for joining, it might be possible to eliminate their reasons for leaving. MA teens most often joined the program due to its project offerings (MA=42%, ME=33%) or due to a desire to interact with or make new friends (MA=24%, ME 30%). While ME teens mostly joined due to a family influence (ME=39%, MA=21%). With such a heavy family involvement, 4-H for the youth in ME becomes linked with a part of how their family interacts, and this might be a part of the reason behind the ME teens more intensive involvement. In MA it becomes very important for the program to offer new project opportunities in order to keep the teens interested or new social opportunities (like teen conferences) where the teens can interact with others within their peer group. The reasons behind the ME teen’s longer commitment before leaving may also be related to their reasons for joining. When the reason for joining 4-H is an interest in expanding your close-knit community (partially created by a large familial involvement - as in ME), interaction with the program makes it more difficult to leave.

Conclusion

The 4-H program has had a long history of developing teen programming in response to the changing interests of youth and the growing adult concern about unsupervised youth free time. The result has been a strong youth development effort in which teenagers have been given an equal and significant voice in not only what programming they want to be involved in, but also what type of programming they want developed and how they feel the national structure and funding of the organization should be handled. The intensive youth interaction with the structure of the organization itself is what makes 4-H unique in relation to other youth agencies, and is what also should make it more appealing to teenagers.

Unfortunately, 4-H experiences a high teenage attrition rate that has largely been unexplained. This study was an effort to not only discuss the role that 4-H played as a negotiator between youth desires and adult concerns, but also to serve as an evaluation of one of the weaknesses of the 4-H programming -- retaining its teenage audience. An evaluation of the teen programs in Maine and Massachusetts was conducted by interviewing both youth committed to the program and those who had dropped out. Their responses confirm old concerns about the 4-H image, but also challenged the generally held ideas about the reasons that teenagers leave a youth development program.

What was highlighted in this study was that in many ways the teen programs in Maine and Massachusetts are very strong. In fact, in Maine the problem of teenage dropout rates could be considered minimal. By comparing the 1998 enrollment numbers for both states, Maine's retention rate is far greater than Massachusetts, with a 6% gain in enrollment in ages Kindergarten through 6^th grade, and a 26% dropout rate for teens in 7^th through 12^th grade. In Massachusetts, there were 5 youth that left the program (out of a total enrollment of 53,046) between Kindergarten and 6^th grade and a 48% dropout rate for teens in 7^th through 12^th grade (Smith, 1998). These numbers show that 4-H in Maine is successful in retaining almost 75% of its youth through their last year in high school, whereas Massachusetts loses over one half of their youth by that time. Furthermore, the Maine teens interviewed for this sample were often involved for as many as 6 years before leaving; and one might argue that an involvement that long might be sufficiently beneficial for the youth involved. Do teenagers need to be involved with the program until they reach the age of 19, or is a shorter period of involvement just as beneficial? Without studies to determine the benefits of a program such as 4-H (and there is a general deficiency of such studies) one might never know whether the teen drop out rate is due to natural developmental processes in which involvement is no longer necessary or due to a lack of satisfaction with the program.

One of the most direct ways to track the benefits of the 4-H program (and gain a sense of how long a youth needs to be involved in order to gain those benefits) is by tracking 4-H alumni. Unfortunately, this is one of 4-H's weaknesses, and until recently, the organization was not tracking such information. Alumni information would not only provide an evaluative tool for the organization as a whole, but would also highlighting those alumni in the community, possibly changing the public's (and teens') opinion about the focus of 4-H. Alumni could also be beneficial in setting up a mentorship program that would provide an avenue for 4-H teens to connect with the larger working community. Finally, 4-H Alumni are a source of unrecognized funding and inspiration, and therefore, should be an increased focus for 4-H development into the next century.

Recommendations

The results from this study suggest the following actions in order to improve the retention rate of teens involved in 4-H in Maine and Massachusetts:

1. Develop a yearly presentation for every 4-H group in the state that involves teenagers (12-19) that outlines the variety of opportunities and projects available through 4-H including state, national and international opportunities. Make this presentation and discussion an introductory activity to the yearly discussion of the group's focus and intended activities for the year.

2. In conjunction with the yearly 4-H opportunities discussion, make the teens aware that a pen pal, activity, or exchange with 4-Hers from other states is a possible activity in which they become involved.

3. Develop an alumni network. Utilize the alumni data for evaluative purposes, public relations and funding efforts and for the development of a mentorship/internship program for older teens and other alumni.

One of the most disturbing discoveries of this study was that the majority of the reasons for teenagers' disengagement from the program was not due to the program's inflexibility but due to the lack of awareness on the youth's part as to the options that 4-H can offer a teenager. Most of the youth interviewed characterized 4-H as a solely agricultural organization, and characterized youth most suited to 4-H as those who liked or who are interested in agriculture. While 4-H has and retains a strong tie to agriculture, the project areas offered by the program are only as limited as a youth's imagination. The list of project areas is extensive, and whatever a youth is curious about, whether it's how to market one's music, how to launch a rocket, how to create a web business, or how to discover a new star, 4-H provides the educational resources to support that curiosity. It is a shame that teens leave the program because they find that 4-H is "boring" and "uninteresting”. Educating them about the opportunities and possibilities present within the program should be a focus for both of these states. Moreover, ensuring that the Extension and volunteer staff emphasize the opportunities within 4-H to their teen members is an utmost priority.

Bibliography

Austin, J. & Willard, M. (1998). Generations of youth: Youth cultures and history in

Twentieth-century America. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Barson, M. & Heller, S. (1998). Teenage confidential: An illustrated history of the American teen. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.

Borman, K. & Schneider, B. (Eds.) (1998). The adolescent years: social influences and

educational challenges. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society: The social life of the teenager and its impact on education. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Committee of the Judiciary: US Senate. (1955-56). Juvenile delinquency: Comic

books, motion pictures, obscene and pornographic materials, television programs. New York, NY: Greenwood Press, Publishers.

Cotterell, J. (1996). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. New

York, NY: Routledge Publishers.

Erikson, E. (1965). The challenge of youth. New York, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc.

Erickson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton Publishers.

Fenwick, E. & Smith, T. MD. (1994). Adolescents: The survival guide for parents and teenagers. New York, NY: Dorling Kindersley. .

Fornás, J. & Bolin, G. (1995). Youth culture and late modernity. London: Sage Publications.

Ginzberg, E. (Ed). (1960). The nation's children. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

Hall, S. (1911). Adolescence: Its psychology, and its relations to physiology,

anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education. New York, NY: D. Appleton & Co.

Hawes, J. & Hiner, R. (Eds.) (1985). American childhood: A research guide and

historical handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press:.

Ianni, F. (1989). The search for structure: A report on American youth

today. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Nicholson, S. (1972, April). Theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture Quarterly.

Norland, E. & Bennet, M. (1993.) Youth participation. Journal of Extension. http://www.joe.org/joe/1993fall/a5/html.

Kraus, R. (1964). Recreation and the schools. New York, NY: The Macmillian Co.

Lipsitz, J. (1977). Growing up forgotten: A review of research and programs

concerning early adolescence. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Males, M. (1996). The scapegoat generation: America's war on adolescents.

Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press.

McLaughlin, M., Irby, M., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass. Publishers.

Mortimer, J. & Finch, M. (Eds). (1996). Adolescents, work and family: An

intergenerational analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.

Paikoff, R. (1991). Shared views in the family during adolescence. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Palladino, G. (1996). Teenagers: An American history. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Rodiguez, R. (1993, Dec. 13). Who are our children? Los Angeles Times. pp. M1-M6.

Silbereisen, R. & Todt, E. (1994). Adolescent in context: The interplay of family, school, peers and work in adjustment. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Smith, A. (1998). National 4-H enrollment report. Washington, D.C.: United States

Department of Agriculture.

Smith, E. (1962). American youth culture: Group life in teenage society. New

York, NY: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Stern, D. & Eichorn, D. (1989). Adolescents and work: Influences of social structure,

labor markets and culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wessel, T & Wessel, M. (1982). 4-H: An American idea: 1900-1980. Chevy

Chase, MD: National 4-H Council.

Weissbourd, R. (1996). The vulnerable child: What really hurts America's

children and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Worell, J. & Danner, F. (Eds.) (1989). The adolescent as decision-maker: Applications to development and education. Boston, MA: Academic Press, Inc.

Wrenn, G.& Harley, D. (1941). Time on their hands: A report on leisure, recreation & young people. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education.

Zelizer, V. (1985). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.