See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225377449

An Evaluation of Hope Following a Summer

Camp for Inner-City Youth

Article in Child and Youth Care Forum · December 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s10566-010-9119-1

CITATIONS READS

22 181

4 authors, including:

Keri J. Brown Kirschman Michael C Roberts

University of Dayton University of Kansas
17 PUBLICATIONS 318 CITATIONS 323 PUBLICATIONS 4,363 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of Mental and Behavioural Disorders chapter, Eleventh Revision of the International
Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), World Health Organization View
project

Positive Psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael C Roberts on 30 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396
DOI 10.1007/s10566-010-9119-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

An Evaluation of Hope Following a Summer Camp

for Inner-City Youth

Keri J. Brown Kirschman • Michael C. Roberts •

Joanna O. Shadlow • Terri J. Pelley

Published online: 10 August 2010

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract This study reports changes in the positive psychology construct of hope
resulting from adolescents’ participation in a 6 week summer camp devoted to developing
dance and psychosocial competence skills. Over 5 years, the inner-city camp participants
were selected from substantial at-risk situations. Significant positive changes in overall
hope were observed pre and post camp with no further changes observed in a 4 month
follow-up. Possible contributions to the increase and maintenance of higher hopeful
thinking, specific to an inner-city population, are discussed.

Keywords Camps
Psychosocial interventions
At-risk adolescents

Hope
Positive psychology

Introduction

Substantially high numbers of children and adolescents in the United States need mental
health services and only a small proportion of youth receive services in a given year
(Costello et al. 2003; Kataoka et al. 2002; Masi and Cooper 2006). This lack of services
may be particularly problematic for inner-city children, who have been found to be at risk
for a number of negative outcomes, including school drop-out, exposure to violence,
unsafe sexual practices, and substance abuse, and yet often receive no or inappropriate
mental health services (Buka et al. 2001; Caminis et al. 2007; Herrenkohl et al. 2000).
Additionally, inner-city children face greater economic inequality than suburban children,

K. J. B. Kirschman (&)
T. J. Pelley

Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469, USA
e-mail: keri.brown.kirschman@notes.udayton.edu

M. C. Roberts
Clinical Child Psychology Program, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

J. O. Shadlow
Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, USA

123
386 Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396

and therefore, may be at additional risk for behavioral and learning problems (Lipina and
Colombo 2009; McLoyd 1998).
Risks for inner-city youth typically occur at multiple levels (Farmer et al. 2004) and
thus, prevention programs designed to address multiple risk-behaviors and involve the
community are generally more effective than programs that address a single risk behavior
and lack community involvement (Durlak 1998; Flay et al. 2004). Guidelines for the
development of successful prevention programs highlight the importance of integrating
culture, promoting cultural pride, and developing a sense of self for ethnic minority youth
(Hilliard 1989; Kaufmann and Dodge 1997; Knight et al. 2009; Willis 2002). In a quest for
‘‘exemplary programs that concentrated on teenagers’’ (p. 46), Dryfoos (2000) highlighted
programs that promote education, prevent the development of additional risky behaviors,
and express high expectations for the youth involved.
Although interventions are often organized activities in the schools, the summertime is
another optimal opportunity for the delivery of therapeutic and/or preventive interventions
for at-risk youth. Youth identified as at-risk are raised in families where environmental
risks (e.g., poverty, negative family interactions, drug abuse, mental illness) are present
and where negative outcomes are more likely to develop (Sameroff 2006). Preventive
services in a camp environment have long been noted to be advantageous in that they
provide opportunities for daily interactions with children and adolescents, frequent mon-
itoring of youths’ responses to challenges, adult role-models, and the development of
physical and social skills (e.g., Anderson-Butcher et al. 2004; Apter 1977; Thurber et al.
2007). In a large national multi-camp study, youth (ages 8–14) who attended a summer
program of at least 1 week in duration reported gains in self-esteem, independence,
leadership, friendship skills, adventure/exploration, and spirituality, with several gains
maintained 6 months post-camp (Thurber et al. 2007). However, empirical research on the
effects of participation in summer camps for at-risk adolescents has remained sparse. There
has been some evidence of improvements in self-esteem, self-competency, and high camp
satisfaction for youth with behavioral problems (Michalski et al. 2003), however, the
longevity of positive outcomes related to camp exposure has not fully been examined
(Brown 2004).
Researchers and practitioners have increasingly noted the need, particularly when
working with adolescents, to examine the strengths and positive assets rather than focusing
on the multitude of stressors and potential negative outcomes (Cowen 1991; Johnson et al.
1999). Dryfoos (2000) concluded that successful programs for adolescent development
emphasized optimism and hope and were growth-enhancing for the adolescents and their
families. The construct of hope, as defined by Snyder et al. (1991), is thought to be
important in understanding how youth in disadvantaged situations learn to deal with
stressors, avoid developing problem behaviors, and work towards future goals in a pro-
ductive manner (Snyder 1994). Specifically, hope is defined as a cognitive set involving
beliefs in one’s abilities to produce workable routes to goals (waypower or pathways), and
beliefs in his or her capacity to initiate and sustain movement toward those goals (will-
power or agency; Snyder et al. 1991). Measures of children’s hope correlate positively with
self-reported competency, and children with high levels of hope report feeling more
positively about themselves and less depressed than children with lower levels of hope
(Leeson et al. 2008; Stark and Boswell 2001).
Several studies have shown hope to be a protective factor associated with adaptive
functioning in at-risk youth (Hagen et al. 2005; Valle et al. 2006; Wilson et al. 2005). In a
longitudinal study, baseline hope was found to moderate effects of negative life events on
global life satisfaction and internalizing problems 1 year later, but not on externalizing

123
Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396 387

behaviors (Valle et al. 2006). High hope was found to be most protective for adolescents
who had endured a greater number of life stressors. In a sample of children (ages
6–12 years) whose mothers were incarcerated, higher hope was found to predict fewer
internalizing and externalizing problems even after controlling for social support and levels
of stress (Hagen et al. 2005).
Positive psychology constructs, such as hope and optimism, need to be investigated
further as useful domains of functioning and adjustment. Snyder (1994) theorized that hope
is a mechanism of change of psychosocial and psychotherapeutic interventions (Brown
Kirschman et al. 2009). More than merely an absence of psychopathology or problems,
hope, in particular, reflects an individual’s general well-being. Hope is a developing
process involving a person’s (a) thinking about goals (b) motivation to move toward these
goals, and (c) perceiving ways of achieving them (Snyder et al. 2005).
Hope, in this context, is one aspect of positive psychology (Brown Kirschman et al.
2009) that was measured for changes over time to evaluate a preventive psychosocial
intervention provided through a six-week summer dance camp. The program is designed to
enhance adolescent campers’ dance and life skills (see ‘‘Methods’’ for camp details). It was
hypothesized that participants would report significantly higher levels of hope at the
conclusion of the camp intervention as compared to baseline hope scores. It was antici-
pated that the camp experience would promote both the pathways and agency components
of hope, as outlined by Snyder et al. (1997). Thus, campers were expected to perceive
themselves as having more ability to initiate and sustain movement towards their goals
(i.e., agency) and to reach their goals (i.e., pathways) at the conclusion of the camp
experience. It was further hypothesized that participants’ hope would remain significantly
higher than baseline scores when assessed 4 months post-camp. In addition to levels of
hope, campers’ perceived competence in dance, music, and writing, as well as their con-
tinued social support from other camp participants were assessed to examine other
potential psychosocial benefits of the program intervention.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study were children enrolled in the Kansas City, Missouri (5 years) and
Kansas City, Kansas (2 years) Aileycamps. There was a total of 406 middle-school aged
campers (312 female, 94 male), enrolled ages 11–14 years (M = 12.13, SD = .98).
Campers were individually interviewed by camp personnel at their respective middle
schools in the spring prior to camp and selected into the camp based on the degree to which
they possessed greater numbers of at-risk characteristics (e.g., low socioeconomic status,
lack of identified adult role models, sibling/parent incarceration, siblings who are teenage
parents). Youth required to attend summer school were ineligible for the program given the
time conflict of the summer day program. Campers self-identified their ethnicity as African
American (76.2%), biracial (11.4%), European American (6.6%), Hispanic American
(4%), Asian American (\1%), and Native American (\1%).

Description of Summer Program

The current study was the preliminary evaluation of an existing summer dance camp for
middle-school aged inner-city youth. The camp-based intervention is a product of the

123
388 Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396

collaboration of a large metropolitan dance company, an auxiliary team of social workers,

art, music, and writing teachers, a clinical evaluation team, and professional dancers.
‘‘Aileycamp’’ was developed by The Alvin Ailey American Dance Company as envisioned
by the late Alvin Ailey to expose inner-city children to the art and discipline of dance.
Aileycamp is currently conducted in ten cities across the United States. This study focuses
on five consecutive summers of the Kansas City Aileycamp, sponsored by The Kansas City
Friends of Alvin Ailey with the school setting and assistance with busing contributed by
the public school system.
The six-week day camp featured several basic principles:
1. Camp personnel are primarily of ethnic minority status in order to provide mentorship
to the largely minority camp body and promote cultural identification and pride.
2. Dance serves as the medium for exercise, body awareness and appreciation, and self-
discipline. Various types of dance are taught (e.g., ballet, modern, jazz) as are other art
forms, including percussion and creative-writing.
3. The campers are divided into smaller groups for daily personal and psychosocial
development classes focusing on conflict management, decision-making, drug and
alcohol use, sexual health and decision-making, career goals, nutrition, and interper-
sonal violence prevention.
4. An emphasis on positive interactions and strengths building permeates the camp
activities and instructor actions.
5. The camp culminates in an evening dance concert on a professional stage in front of
family, friends, and opens to the community as an exhibition of talent and gains from
program participation. Readings from the participants’ creative writings and percussion
demonstrations are dispersed throughout the event.
6. On-site counselors attend to individual needs as they arise during camp and provide
subsequent mental health referrals at the end of camp when necessary.

Procedure

All campers in attendance during the data collection periods had the opportunity to par-
ticipate in the project. Written consent was obtained from the parent before the start of
camp and oral assent was obtained from the child before completing the measures.
The children were asked to answer questions on some or all of the following measures:
the Children’s Hope Scale, Exposure to Community Violence, Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System, Skill Ratings, and Follow-up Friendship Measure. The measures
were presented in random order at a maximum of three time points (Time 1, the first day of
camp, Time 2, the last day of camp, and Time 3, at a 4 month follow-up). Data collection
took 30–45 min per child at each collection period.

Measures

Children’s Hope Scale (CHS)

The CHS (Snyder et al. 1997) is a 6-item self-report questionnaire developed to assess
level of hope as defined by the hope theory (Snyder 1994). Each child answers six
questions on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 6 (all of the time). Total
scores range from 6 to 36 and an average score on the scale is 25, suggesting that the
average child has hope a lot of the time. Based on the original standardization sample

123
Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396 389

(Snyder et al. 1997), a score of 29 or higher is considered to indicate high hope (top 15%)
and a score of 21 or lower is considered to indicate low hope (bottom 15%). Two factors of
hope, labeled Agency and Pathways, are measured on the CHS (Snyder et al. 1997) and
have been supported via confirmatory factor analysis (Valle et al. 2004). The three CHS
items that measure Agency assess orientation towards goal initiation and perseverance
(e.g., ‘‘I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future’’). The three
items that comprise the Pathways scale measure the child’s beliefs that they can accom-
plish their goals (e.g., ‘‘Even when others want to quit, I know that I can find ways to solve
the problem’’).
The CHS has demonstrated satisfactory reliability among 8–16-year old child popula-
tions with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .72 to .86, with a median alpha of .77
(Snyder et al. 1997). Valle et al. (2004) evaluated the CHS with samples of predominately
African American youth; mean hope scores of 28.89 (SD = 5.7) for the 10–14 years old
subgroup were reported. Item-total correlations were found to be acceptable, ranging from
.51 to .69, with alpha coefficients of .83 and .84. In addition, Valle et al. established
criterion-related validity as noted by positive correlations with perceived social supports
(r = .59, p \ .01) and life satisfaction (r = .49, p \ .01). Discriminant validity was
supported through non-significant correlations with intelligence test scores. The CHS
showed acceptable reliability for the current sample, Time 1: a = .87; Time 2: a = .82;
Time 3: a = .84. Internal reliability for the Agency and Pathway subscales across all
assessment periods ranged from .64 to .81.

Exposure to Community Violence

Children’s exposure to community violence was assessed via a 54-item self-report measure
(Richters and Saltzman 1990) of direct victimization as well as witnessing violence
towards others (e.g., chased, hit, attacked with knife, sexually assaulted). Richters and
Saltzman (1990) reported good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha of .82. A one-
week test–retest reliability of .81was also reported. Additional psychometric data have not
been published on the full version of this measure (Brandt et al. 2005). The current study
used an amended long-form self-report version of the scale (Gaba 1996) that produced
three subscale scores representing decreasing proximity to the said event: (1) personal
(‘‘I have been threatened with serious physical harm by someone,’’ 15 questions) (2)
exposure (‘‘I have seen someone threatened with serious physical harm,’’ 12 questions),
and (3) contact (‘‘I know someone who was threatened with serious physical harm,’’ 12
questions). All questions have true/false answers. Items endorsed as ‘‘true’’ are dummy
coded ‘‘1’’ and summated with total exposure scores ranging from 0 to 39. Hinton-Nelson
et al. (1996) reported means (with standard deviations in parentheses) on personal 4.69
(2.98), exposure 7.39 (2.75), and contact 9.12 (2.95) subscales when the 39-item version
was used in a sample of early adolescents living in high crime Midwestern metropolitan
area. Test–retest reliabilities for the subscales were good and ranged from .71 to .90 with
an internal reliability of .92 for the full measure (Gaba 1997). In the current study, internal
reliability for the full measure was .92. Internal consistency values for personal, contact,
and exposure subscales were .74, .82, and .85, respectively.

The Skills Rating Form (SRF)

The SRF was designed for this study to assess the campers’ perceptions of pre- and post-
camp abilities in the following domains: ballet, tap, jazz, modern dance, percussion, and

123
390 Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396

creative writing. Participants rated their abilities on the first and the last day of camp on a
Likert-type scale of 1 ‘‘no/little skill’’ to 7 ‘‘extremely skilled.’’

The Friendship Follow-up Measure

The friendship measure was designed to assess the frequency in which camp graduates
maintained contact with fellow Aileycampers and staff. For those campers who partici-
pated in the four-month follow-up, questions were asked about the type (phone, in-person)
and frequency of contact with other camp graduates.

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS)

The YRBSS (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2007) consists of 97 questions
and examines six categories regarding risky behaviors in youth including injury, violence,
substance use, sexual activity, diet and exercise (Eaton et al. 2008). The YRBSS has been
administered primarily to 9th through 12th grade students at the national, state, and local
levels in order to develop representative samples. The measure is used to assess percentage
of engagement of specific risk taking behaviors for the sample of interest. For the present
study, 20–25 questions were used due to time constraints (and camp funder requirements
for descriptive information); these items focused primarily on demographic information,
substance use, and violence. Brener et al. (2002) found that adolescents reported health risk
behaviors via the YRBSS in areas of interest to the current study (e.g., substance use,
violence) with moderate to substantial reliability over time, with mean kappa coefficient of
agreements of 59.9–68.8%. In a study utilizing the YRBSS to examine violence among
adolescents, 48.8% of youth aged 12–14 disclosed that they had been in a physical fight in
the past year (Lowry et al. 1998). In regards to alcohol use, 23.9–65.5% of a national
sample of middle-school students endorsed previous alcohol experimentation (Whalen
et al. 2005).

Results

Table 1 describes the sample of campers participating in this study. Survey completion
rates for pre and post-camp measures were 94% of all campers enrolled in camp.
Incomplete information for 26 campers was due to an absence the first day of camp (e.g.,
busing problems) or late-enrollment. Four-month follow-up was conducted with 126 camp
graduates, 50% of all campers enrolled in the first 3 years of the evaluation. Participants in
the four-month post-camp evaluation did not differ significantly from non-participants on
pre-camp demographic variables.
Pre-post camp skill ratings were analyzed using a paired-sample t-test. Using Holm’s
Bonferroni sequential procedure to control for multiple comparisons, campers perceived
their skills as significantly higher in all artistic areas at the end of camp as compared with
the first day skill ratings as presented in Table 2.
Camp graduates reported on their contact with fellow camp graduates at four-months
post-camp. Former campers reported that they had spoken, on average, with 3.7
(SD = 3.1) campers via phone. A substantial number had invited another camper to their
home (42.5%) or had visited another camper at his or her home (40%). The majority of
camp graduates (95%) said that at least one of their current friends (M = 6.27, SD = 4.31)

123
Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396 391

Table 1 Demographic charac-

Variable Pre-camp 4-Month
teristics of campers
(n = 393) follow-up
(n = 126)

Camper age
11 years old 20.4%
12 years old 48.3%
13 years old 27.3%
% Female 76.8%
% African American 76.4%
% Free or reduced luncha 83.9%
Youth-risk behavior surveillance system
% having tried alcohol 46.9% 52.1%
% fight in past year 48.5% 49.3%
a
Government subsidized lunch Exposure to violenceb M (SD)
information was available for
three camp years. b Exposure to Personal 3.54 (2.64)
Violence measures given Exposure 6.52 (3.05)
campers from three camp years Contact 6.80 (3.41)
(n = 150)

Table 2 Means and standard

Variable Pre-camp Post-camp
deviations for arts skills
M (SD) M (SD)
self-ratings
Ballet 3.13 (1.96) 4.79 (1.48)
Tap 3.08 (2.02) 5.14 (1.55)
Modern 3.54 (3.52) 5.12 (1.54)
Means across all rows are
significantly different (p \ .001) Jazz 3.41 (2.19) 5.38 (1.43)
using Holm’s sequential Creative writing 4.60 (1.96) 5.26 (1.39)
Bonferroni correction procedure Percussions 2.64 (1.83) 4.64 (1.73)
to control for Type 1 error

is an Aileycamp graduate. A quarter of Aileycampers surveyed reported that they had

written at least one camp staff member.

Baseline and Post-camp Hope Scores

A within-subjects ANOVA was conducted using aggregated CHS data for the seven camp
sessions and examining the dependent measure, Hope, at two points in time: pre-camp
baseline and at the end of camp, Wilks’ K = .987, F (1, 377) = 5.082, p = .025, partial
eta squared of .013. Hope, as reported on the CHS, was significantly higher at the con-
clusion of the camp experience when compared with baseline scores. Reported scores for
both the Agency and the Pathway subscales of the CHS were compared across time.
A within-subjects ANOVA found that Agency subscale scores were significantly higher on
the last day of camp than at pre-camp, Wilks’ K = .975, F (1, 377) = 9.567, p = .002,
partial eta squared of .025. The within-subject ANOVA conducted for the Pathways
subscale indicated that the children’s responses in the Pathways domain at the end of the
camp were not significantly different than their pre-camp responses, Wilks’ K = .999,
F (1, 377) = .350, p = .555. The means and standard deviations for Hope total and
subscale scores across all time points are presented in Table 3.

123
392 Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396

Table 3 Means and standard

Variable Assessment period
deviations for hope scores across
time Pre-camp Post-camp 4-month
(n = 393) (n = 391) follow-up
(n = 147)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Values in the same row with
different letters are significantly Agency 14.05a (2.74) 14.51b (2.63) 14.61b (2.51)
different (p \ .05) using Holm’s Pathways 13.03 (2.95) 13.10 (3.02) 13.38 (2.88)
sequential Bonferroni correction Total 26.96a (5.24) 27.58b (5.22) 28.01b (4.73)
procedure

Follow-up Hope Scores

Four-month follow-up data were individually collected in the camp participants’ schools
for a subsample of three of the participating summer camps (2 Missouri, 1 Kansas). A one-
way within-subjects ANOVA was conducted with time as the within group factor and total
scores on the CHS as the dependent variable. The ANOVA indicated an insignificant time
effect, Wilks’ K = .957, F (2, 124) = 2.82, p = .066, multivariate g2 = .043. A retro-
spective power analysis indicated a power of .54, below the recommended .80 level.
Paired sample t tests were conducted to evaluate the differences among the individual
hope means, using Holm’s sequential Bonferroni method to control for Type 1 error across
the three paired-sample t tests. The results indicated that total hope on the CHS was
reported to be significantly higher immediately following camp and at 4-month follow-up
than at the beginning of camp. There was not a significant difference between post-camp
hope and 4-month follow-up. A one-way within-subjects ANOVA was conducted to
evaluate changes on the Agency domain of the CHS across time. The ANOVA was
significant, Wilks’ K = .909, F (2, 124) = 6.54, p = .003, multivariate g2 = .091. Paired
sample t tests were conducted to evaluate the differences among the individual Agency
means, using Holm’s sequential Bonferroni method to control for Type 1 error across the
three paired-sample t tests. The results indicated that campers report a significantly higher
Agency score immediately after camp or at a 4-month follow-up visit than prior to camp.
There were no significant differences between post-camp and at 4-month follow-up.
The one-way within-subjects ANOVA conducted on the Pathways subscale indicated an
insignificant time effect, Wilks’ K = .980, F (2, 124) = .559, p = .289.

Discussion

Adolescents participating in a summer camp devoted to dance and the arts with inter-
ventions for personal psychosocial development reported increases in their hopeful
thinking over the 6 week day camp. Campers were from substantially reduced socioeco-
nomic backgrounds, with relatively high rates of violence exposure and other risk
behaviors. Many of their gains were maintained over a period of time following the
conclusion of the camp and a return to school year activities. Thus, the camp experience
enhanced overall hope. This effect is primarily due to positive changes in the adolescents’
sense of success in achieving their goals (agency), more so than their perceptions of being
able to create ways to attain the goals (pathways).
In addition to hope, the campers reported increases in their perceived skill levels in
various camp domains (jazz, tap, modern, and ballet dance skills, drumming abilities,

123
Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396 393

creative writing). The participants reported continued contact with other campers as social
support following the camps. We did not find much change in reported risk behaviors.
The measures are cumulative in reporting these behaviors, so this finding was not
surprising.
We cannot ascertain exactly which aspects of the program contributed to the camp
participants’ hope reports and other positive changes, especially emphasizing the agency
construct in hope theory. Many Aileycamp activities are quite related to positive psy-
chology considerations including a safe and structured environment, caring adult role-
models, the creative elements, the psychosocial development experiences, discipline
activities demanded by dance forms, or the combination of all. In addition, Aileycamp staff
helps youth set personal and group performance goals. According to Lopez et al. (2009),
adult mentorship in establishing tangible and productive goals that involve working with
others (e.g., learning material for final group dance program) may cultivate hope. Of
course, these considerations require further investigation to determine the active agents of
change. The current camp design appears to have positive psychology effects that may be
even further enhanced with exercises that are designed to cultivate hope. An additional
focus on such activities as problem-solving skills might impact both agency and pathway
reports. In particular, helping the campers visualize ways to achieve their goals (pathways
thinking) would be important to complement the observed increases in beliefs about their
ability to move toward their goals. Activities might involve goal setting, responsibility
training, and emphases on problem-solving skills building (Farrell et al. 2001). The latter
activities, in particular, might lead to improved pathways thinking.
A number of limitations to the study should be mentioned. First, at the start of the
program, adolescents in the program reported average levels of hope (M = 26.96).
Without having a randomized control group of children with similar characteristics, not
engaged in a camp experience, there are limits on the inferences that can be made from the
camp experience. Due to constraints by the sponsoring organization, we could not utilize a
randomized control design. The camp program personnel remain strongly committed to
serving the adolescents most at risk for problems and resisted assigning any potential
participant to what they might consider a less effective intervention as a comparison.
However, previous research suggests that our sample was representative of similar ethnic
minority inner-city youth. For example, Valle et al. (2006) found that African American
adolescents reported significantly higher levels of hope than Caucasian adolescents
(M = 29.48 vs. M = 27.82, respectively). In a similar inner-city sample, Hinton-Nelson
et al. (1996) found that adolescents who had witnessed violence, but had less direct
personal experience, had unexpectedly high levels of hope. That being said, these ado-
lescents may also have had different levels of hope at baseline than inner-city at-risk
adolescents who were not interested in pursuing this type of programmatic summer
activity, or who were not able to participate due to academic problems that necessitated
attendance at summer school. Furthermore, baseline hope scores were collected at the
beginning of camp and may have been artificially inflated due to positive feelings and
anticipation of the upcoming camp experience. Without a control group, we are unable to
assess this consideration. Nevertheless, gains in hope—regardless of starting levels—are
thought to be advantageous for at-risk individuals (Snyder et al. 2000). Relying only on
self-report of psychosocial functioning and not obtaining parent report or observational
data to confirm positive changes in these youth restrains interpretations of this study.
Finally, the restrictions inherent in working within the bounds of an existing infra-
structure of service delivery placed some constraints on this project. Although the lead-
ership within the non-profit agency that sponsored the camps clearly placed importance on

123
394 Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396

program evaluation and research, the agency’s ability to dedicate resources towards this
effort varied by camp year. Thus, it was difficult to obtain agency commitment to support
more extensive research protocols at the time of project initiation, or to plan beyond any
given upcoming summer camp. Changes in leadership and foundation funding also
affected the selection of measures and how they were administered. For example, in the
early evaluation years, the camp sponsors expressed concerns regarding the sensitive
nature of exposure to violence items and did not allow the inclusion of participant iden-
tification numbers that would have enabled us to match scores on this measure to other
study data (e.g., demographics, hope). Because program evaluation fulfills multiple needs,
investigators must adapt questions, measures and procedures. We cannot determine if these
effects are maintained over a longer period of time than the four-month follow-up. Further,
the ability to obtain grades and attendance records for campers was attenuated by the
district’s record keeping systems.
Despite the limitations, the findings from this study have several important implications.
These results might not extend to all summer camps, but positive psychology effects might
be investigated for other types of camp structures and experiences. As a program evalu-
ation, this report provides information about the impact of the camp on the youth partic-
ipants who were at risk for many negative life-outcomes. This report provides evidence to
support the mission of the camp, which is to improve the futuristic outlook of at-risk inner
city youth through the vehicle of dance. Further, this report demonstrates preliminary
evidence in support of a positive psychology orientation to psychosocial interventions and
to the evaluation of effects on hope.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey for their
support and extend appreciation to the children and their families served by the Aileycamps in Kansas City,
Missouri and Kansas.

References

Anderson-Butcher, D., Cash, S. J., Saltzburg, S., Midle, T., & Pace, D. (2004). Institutions of youth
development: The significance of supportive staff-youth relationships. Journal of Human Behavior in
the Social Environment, 9, 83–99. doi:10.1300/J137v09n01_07.
Apter, S. J. (1977). Therapeutic camping: An alternative strategy for troubled children. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 6, 73–75. doi:10.1080/15374417709532790.
Brandt, R., Ward, C. L., Dawes, A., & Flisher, A. J. (2005). Epidemiological measurement of children’s and
adolescent’s exposure to community violence: Working with the current state of the science. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 327–342. doi:10.1007/s10567-005-8811-4.
Brener, N. D., Kann, L., McManus, T., Kinchen, S. A., Sundberg, E. C., & Ross, J. G. (2002). Reliability of
the 1999 youth risk behavior survey questionnaire. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 336–342. doi:
10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00339-7.
Brown, K. J. (2004). Therapeutic camping programs. In R. G. Steele & M. C. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of
mental health services for children, adolescents, and families (pp. 305–315). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/0-387-23864-6_20.
Brown Kirschman, K. J., Johnson, R. J., & Roberts, M. C. (2009). Positive psychology for children. In S.
J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 133–148). New York,
NY: Oxford.
Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence,
risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298–310. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.
71.3.298.
Caminis, A., Henrich, C., Ruchkin, V., Schwab-Stone, M., & Martin, A. (2007). Psychosocial predictors of
sexual inhibition and high-risk sexual behaviors in early adolescence. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
and Mental Health, 1, 1–14. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-1-14.

123
Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396 395

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Youth risk behavior surveillance system. Retrieved
from: http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss.
Costello, E. J., Mustillo, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., & Angold, A. (2003). Prevalence and development of
psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 837–844. doi:
10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.837.
Cowen, E. L. (1991). In pursuit of wellness. American Psychologist, 46, 404–408. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.46.4.404.
Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Durlak, J. (1998). Common risk and protective factors in successful prevention programs. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 512–520. doi:10.1037/h0080360.
Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, K., Shanklin, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., et al. (2008). Youth risk behavior
surveillance-United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57, 1–131.
Farmer, T. W., Price, L. N., O’Neal, K. K., Leung, M. C., Goforth, J. B., Cairns, B. D., et al. (2004).
Exploring risk in early adolescent African American youth. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 33, 51–59. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000014318.16652.30.
Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., & White, K. S. (2001). Evaluation of responding in peaceful and positive ways
(RIPP): A school-based prevention program for reducing violence among urban adolescents. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 451–463. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_02.
Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L., & Holliday, M. Y. (2004). Effects of 2 prevention
programs on high-risk behaviors among African American youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine, 158, 377–384. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.4.377.
Gaba, R. J. (1996). Psychometric properties of the survey of children’s exposure to community violence:
Screening version. Doctoral dissertation. Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 9637818).
Hagen, K. A., Myers, B. J., & Mackintosh, V. H. (2005). Hope, social support, and behavioral problems in
at-risk children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 211–219. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.211.
Herrenkohl, T. I., Maguin, E., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2000).
Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 176–186. doi:
10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00065-8.
Hilliard, A. G., I. I. I. (1989). Reintegration for education: Black community involvement with black
students in schools. In W. D. Smith & E. W. Chunn (Eds.), Black education: A quest for equity and
excellence (pp. 201–208). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Hinton-Nelson, M. D., Roberts, M. C., & Snyder, C. R. (1996). Early adolescents exposed to violence: Hope
and vulnerability to victimization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 346–353. doi:10.1037/
h0080185.
Johnson, N. G., Roberts, M. C., & Worell, J. (Eds.). (1999). Beyond appearances: A new look at adolescent
girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kataoka, S. H., Zhang, L., & Wells, K. B. (2002). Unmet need for mental health care among U.S. children:
Variation by ethnicity and insurance status. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1548–1555. doi:
10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1548.
Kaufmann, R. K., & Dodge, J. M. (1997). Prevention and early intervention for young children at risk for
mental health and substance abuse problems and their families: A background paper. Washington,
DC: National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health Services.
Knight, G. P., Roosa, M. W., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2009). Studying ethnic minority and economically
disadvantaged populations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/
11887-000.
Leeson, P., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2008). Cognitive ability, personality, and academic perfor-
mance in adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 630–635. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.
07.006.
Lipina, S. J., & Colombo, J. A. (2009). Poverty and brain development during childhood: An approach from
cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:
10.1037/11879-000.
Lopez, S. J., Rose, S., Robinson, C., Marques, S. C., & Pais-Ribeiro, J. (2009). Measuring and promoting
hope in schoolchildren. In R. Gilman, E. S. Huebner, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology in the schools (pp. 37–50). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.1002/9781444306002.
Lowry, R., Powell, K. E., Kann, L., Collins, J. L., & Kolbe, L. J. (1998). Weapon-carrying, physical fighting,
and fight-related injury among U.S. adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14,
122–129. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00020-2.

123
396 Child Youth Care Forum (2010) 39:385–396

Masi, R., & Cooper, J. L. (2006). Children’s mental health: Facts for policymakers. Retrieved from National
Center for Children in Poverty website: http://nccp.org/publications/pub_687.html.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53,
185–204. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185.
Michalski, J. H., Mishna, F., Worthington, C., & Cummings, R. (2003). A multi-method impact evaluation
of a therapeutic summer camp program. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20, 53–76. doi:
10.1023/A:1021467503588.
Richters, J. E., & Saltzman, W. (1990). Survey of children’s exposure to community violence: Self-report
version. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
Sameroff, A. (2006). Identifying risk and protective factors for healthy child development. In A. Clarke-
Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count: Effects on child and adolescent development (pp. 53–76).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York, NY: Free Press.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991).
The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual- differences measure of hope.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570.
Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., et al. (1997). The development
and validation of the children’s hope scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 399–421. doi:
10.1093/jpepsy/22.3.399.
Snyder, C. R., Feldman, D. B., Taylor, J. D., Schroeder, L. L., & Adams, V. H. (2000). The roles of hopeful
thinking in preventing problems and enhancing strengths. Applied & Preventive Psychology: Current
Scientific Perspectives, 9, 249–269. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(00)80003-7.
Snyder, C. R., Cheavens, J. S., & Michael, S. T. (2005). Hope theory: History and elaborated model.
In J. A. Elliott (Ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on hope (pp. 101–118). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science.
Stark, K. D., & Boswell, J. (2001). Discussion of the penn optimism program: Recognizing its strengths and
considerations for enhancing the program. In J. E. Gillham (Ed.), The science of optimism and hope:
Research essays in honor of Martin E. P. Seligman (pp. 235–256). Philadelphia, PA: Templeton
Foundation Press.
Thurber, C. A., Scanlin, M. M., Scheuler, L., & Henderson, K. A. (2007). Youth development outcomes of
the camp experience: Evidence for multidimensional growth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36,
241–254. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9142-6.
Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2004). Further evaluation of the children’s hope scale. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 320–337. doi:10.1177/073428290402200403.
Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2006). An analysis of hope as a psychological strength.
Journal of School Psychology, 44, 393–406. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.03.005.
Whalen, L. G., Grunbaum, J. A., Kinchen, S., McManus, T., Shanklin, S. L., & Kann, L. (2005). Middle
school youth risk behavior survey 2003. Retrieved from Center for Disease Control and Prevention
website: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/middleschool2003/pdf/fullreport.pdf.
Willis, D. J. (2002). Introduction to the special issue: Economic, health, and mental health disparities among
ethnic minority children and families. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 309–314. doi:
10.1093/jpepsy/27.4.309.
Wilson, N., Syme, S. L., Boyce, W. T., Battistich, V. A., & Selvin, S. (2005). Adolescent alcohol, tobacco,
and marijuana use: The influence of neighborhood disorder and hope. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 20, 11–19.

123
View publication stats