Negotiating Among Opportunity and Constraint: The Participation of Young People in Out-of-School-Time Activities

Out-of-school opportunities -- such as arts and music programs, sports teams, community service and youth entrepreneurship opportunities -- are increasingly seen as potentially powerful tools to promote positive youth development and to prevent problematic behaviors. Based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with 99 students in 10th grade in four Chicago Public Schools, this Chapin Hall report explores young people's perspectives on their use of out-of-school time and the influences, barriers, contexts, and processes that contribute to their choices and experiences. The report investigates how young people learn about and choose to get involved in different kinds of out-of-school opportunities and the influence that family members, peers, and non-family adults have on their thinking and decision making. It also explores the relationship between young people's participation in out-of-school programs and their interests, aspirations, and assessments of the kinds of opportunities and barriers found within their families, schools and neighborhoods. Finally, it offers conclusions and recommendations about how to improve opportunities for young people based on the insights provided by them, including specific suggestions about approaches to outreach, access, ongoing engagement and program provision

Mixed-income development in Chicago helps residential integration but also continues social exclusion.

Over the past two decades, many cities have attempted to tackle urban poverty through mixed-income redevelopment of public housing estates. Using Chicago’s Plan for Transformation as a case study, Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph find that efforts to integrate public housing residents into more economically diverse developments actually lead to new forms of inequality and marginalization, rather than well-functioning mixed income neighborhoods. They write that developers are often focused on maintaining the attractiveness and market value of redeveloped communities, which often leads to the adoption of zero-tolerance mechanisms of monitoring and control against low-income residents

Hot times, hot places. Youths’ risk perceptions and risk management in Chicago and Rotterdam

Many young people in low-income neighbourhoods are considered to be at risk of poor social outcomes and of becoming victims of violence and crime. This exploratory study focuses on how young people perceive risk and navigate their environment in two low-income, multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, one in Rotterdam and one in Chicago. We conducted in-depth interviews and mental mapping exercises with young people aged 14–19 in both sites. We found that neighbourhoods matter because they expose young people to certain kinds of risks, but also that their responses were shaped by their perceptions and interpretations of these risks. Moreover, we illustrate the dynamic and interactive nature of these processes of risk perception and management by discussing the ways in which different groups occupy and use, or travel through, public space at different times of the day. We argue that risk in disadvantaged neighbourhoods is not a static dimension in young people’s lives but rather emerges from an ongoing and complex interaction between perception, interpretation and response that can be seen as a kind of boundary work

Formalization, Citizenship and the Challenges of Self-Governance in Mumbai's Slum Relocation Colonies

The city of Mumbai is engaged in large-scale urban restructuring efforts. Foundational to these is the demolition of many of the city's informal settlements and the relocation of residents to newly built housing complexes. Often discussed in terms of dispossession, this process is also one of formalization, with spatial, economic, cultural and sociopolitical implications. This article focuses on formalization's sociopolitical dimension, entailing the registration of residents and the establishment of formal governance provisions and new citizenship expectations. The provision of formal housing and recognized housing tenure has, designedly, been coupled with the establishment of official self-governance mechanisms leading to new civic responsibilities and reshaping the experience of citizenship among former slum dwellers. We explore these governance arrangements, the interaction between formality and informal governance processes and how these arrangements impact residents’ perspectives on citizenship. We also identify several challenges to effective self-governance and the ways in which formal and informal processes shape residents’ experiences of community life, citizenship and urban integration. While residents have benefited from some aspects of formalization (e.g. indoor plumbing and codified tenure rights), it has brought additional burdens, and the challenges of self-governance have, for many relocatees, reproduced a kind of marginalized citizenship within formal structures

Toward Greater Effectiveness in Community Change: Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy

Offers a model suggesting how foundations can most effectively think about, do the work of, and learn from community change. Part of the series Practice Matters: The Improving Philanthropy Project

Toward Greater Effectiveness in Community Change: Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy - Executive Summary

Philanthropies of all types seek to improve communities—for lots of reasons, and in lots of different ways. Their efforts have produced promising results and some beginning lessons about community change. But more remains to be done to ensure that philanthropic investments in community change meet expectations and that funders use the emerging lessons to move their agendas forward. Based on interviews conducted for this paper, many funders are eager to take on that challenge

Toward Greater Effectiveness in Community Change: Challenges and Responses for Philanthropy - Discussion Guide

The goal of this discussion guide is to assist foundations to engage in a dialogue about how philanthropy can become more effective in its support of community-change initiatives. The guide can be used in at least two ways. A foundation or a group of foundations intending to launch a community change initiative can use the guide as part of its planning process. Alternatively, foundations already involved in supporting a community-change initiative can use the guide as a framework to review the project's status and examine whether any changes in philanthropic practice make sense

An argument against the focus on Community Resilience in Public Health

Background - It has been suggested that Public Health professionals focus on community resilience in tackling chronic problems, such as poverty and deprivation; is this approach useful? Discussion - Resilience is always i) of something ii) to something iii) to an endpoint, as in i) a rubber ball, ii) to a blunt force, iii) to its original shape. “Community resilience” might be: of a neighbourhood, to a flu pandemic, with the endpoint, to return to normality. In these two examples, the endpoint is as-you-were. This is unsuitable for some examples of resilience. A child that is resilient to an abusive upbringing has an endpoint of living a happy life despite that upbringing: this is an as-you-should-be endpoint. Similarly, a chronically deprived community cannot have the endpoint of returning to chronic deprivation: so what is its endpoint? Roughly, it is an as-you-should-be endpoint: to provide an environment for inhabitants to live well. Thus resilient communities will be those that do this in the face of challenges. How can they be identified? One method uses statistical outliers, neighbourhoods that do better than would be expected on a range of outcomes given a range of stressors. This method tells us that a neighbourhood is resilient but not why it is. In response, a number of researchers have attributed characteristics to resilient communities; however, these generally fail to distinguish characteristics of a good community from those of a resilient one. Making this distinction is difficult and we have not seen it successfully done; more importantly, it is arguably unnecessary. There already exist approaches in Public Health to assessing and developing communities faced with chronic problems, typically tied to notions such as Social Capital. Communityresilience to chronic problems, if it makes sense at all, is likely to be a property that emerges from the various assets in a community such as human capital, built capital and natural capital. Summary - Public Health professionals working with deprived neighbourhoods would be better to focus on what neighbourhoods have or could develop as social capital for living well, rather than on the vague and tangential notion of community resilience.</p

Personal and Community Factors as Predictors of different types of community engagement

Citizen participation is an important element of local democracy because it increases residents’ influence over local community issues. Using a sample of 494 Israeli participants, this paper examines, for the first time, the unique and combined contribution of personal factors (self‐ esteem and mastery) and community factors (years of activity, knowledge of local services, trust in leaders, community commitment, and community belonging) to the explanation of the variance in each of two types of community engagement: development and planning, and activism and advocacy. Data analysis included hierarchical regression that examined all variables and possible interactions among them. The results indicate that mastery and the community variables, except for years of activity, predict both types of engagement. Interestingly, knowledge of services negatively predicts both, while trust in leaders also predicts both types of engagement, but in opposite directions. In conclusion, the paper considers how these findings might inform community work interventions

Using the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to Assess and Plan for Sustainability

Implementing and growing a public health program that benefits society takes considerable time and effort. To ensure that positive outcomes are maintained over time, program managers and stakeholders should plan and implement activities to build sustainability capacity within their programs. We describe a 3-part sustainability planning process that programs can follow to build their sustainability capacity. First, program staff and stakeholders take the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to measure their program’s sustainability across 8 domains. Next, managers and stakeholders use results from the assessment to inform and prioritize sustainability action planning. Lastly, staff members implement the plan and keep track of progress toward their sustainability goals. Through this process, staff can more holistically address the internal and external challenges and pressures associated with sustaining a program. We include a case example of a chronic disease program that completed the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool and engaged in program sustainability planning