Equity & Participation

Hansen
Plenary Session Presentation
International Conference on Youth Policy and Research: From Theory to Practice –
Evidence Based Youth Policy
Vienna - Austria – Europe, (22) 23 - 25 September 2009

Equity and Participation

David M. Hansen, Ph.D.,
University of Kansas

The United States struggles, as do most nations, with how to meet its responsibility to
fully prepare its youth for participation in adult collective society. This struggle in the US has
been summarized in different reports and initiatives highlighting the challenges facing youth and
nation: e.g., the “Ready by 21 Challenge” (2008), the Secretaries Commission on Necessary
Skills (SCANS, 1991), “Poverty and Potential” (Berliner, 2009). Despite recognition of the
challenges facing youths’ preparation for adult life, there is little direct “youth policy” to address
these issues (the No Child Left Behind act is one exception). Instead the United States relies on
the education system and on non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups to find
solutions. The US approach is primarily a “bottom-up” approach and stands in contrast to nations
that address societal-wide youth issues from the “top-down” by creating youth targeted policies.
The aim of this presentation is (1) to present existing evidence on how this bottom-up approach
affects issues of equity and participation and (2) to suggest ways in which this information can
be applied to youth policy.

Research Synopsis
There are three primary points that will be made:
First, there is a developmental readiness for youth (pubescent) to become actively
engaged in society and societal issues. There is substantial evidence suggesting the period of
adolescence (puberty to roughly mid 20’s) is a “second critical period of development” during
which the brain undergoes significant neural alterations that lead to new reasoning abilities
(Spear, 2000). A hallmark feature of this newfound ability is reasoning about the ‘self’ in
relation to the larger community and society. These changes occur simultaneously with a
heightened cognitive-affective arousal that appears to encourage development (Keating, 2004).
Practically, neuropsychological evidence points adolescence as a period where youth are primed
to develop civic and social awareness and responsibility. Real-world experience (defined and
discussed in presentation) is an essential tool through which these developments occur,
particularly for disadvantaged youth (Kirshner, 2009). Youths’ developmental readiness,
however, can be squandered by society if there are insufficient systems to promote this
development.

Second, both governmental and non-governmental systems1 affect youths’ preparation for
future and present active citizenship in United States. As I will document, there are considerable
supports within the US, some of which are more effective that others, designed promote youths’

1
The non-governmental systems will necessarily be disparate as they have emerged in citizen’s response to
perceived needs. Thus I will attempt to present ‘typical’ systems instead of concentrating on any one particular
system.

1
 Equity & Participation
Hansen
engagement in society and preparation for adult life. These supports, however, are not distributed
equally across society, communities, or ethnicities.

Third, there are systemic socio-structural factors that create inequitable participation
among certain groups of US youth. After highlighting the potential negative impact of these
systemic factors, I will provide emerging evidence on how disadvantaged youths’ participation
in out-of-school, structured youth activities can help these youth engage with civic and political
processes (Berliner, 2009; Kirshner, 2009).

Implications
The evidence, I suggest, indicates all youth need experiences beyond the classroom that
leverage their readiness to become engaged with local and broader society. Non-classroom
experiences for youth lead to real and essential cognitive development; development that is the
hallmark of adult-thinking. Recognition of this type of development is needed at the
governmental level. In addition to directly addressing structural inequalities, there is need for
increased access to these types of opportunities for youth most affected by inequity. For the
United States, I suggest this includes consistent federal and state funding for outside-of-school
supports for youth who are most affected by inequity. Lastly, I argue there needs to shift in the
US government funding from its current output-focus (test-outcomes accountability) to an input-
output focus (improving social inputs and outcomes).