The Developmental Importance of Success and Failure Experiences at Summer Camp

Young people can learn from success and failure. Such experiences are useful in developing skills (e.g., perseverance and coping), and remain essential facets of youth programming. However, success and failure can also impede development. Appraisal theory has been used widely to examine youths’ experiences with success and failure in school and sport, yet summer camps represent an important setting where success and failure may look and feel different. In camp settings success or failure are often more subjective and less dependent on objective performance indicators such as grades, wins, or losses. Because of these contextual differences, little is known about youth experiences with success and failure at summer camp. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to use summer camp as a context to describe youths’ appraisals of success and failure experiences and the associated development. Findings explain how success and failure at camp can contribute to the positive development of selfefficacy, effective coping, and perseverance. Furthermore, some youth exhibit unproductive responses to failure at camp which may obstruct opportunities for growth. Implications for practice are recommended to help camp staff support young people through failure experiences and to maximize the positive developmental potential of both failure and success at camp.


Introduction
Success and failure can be beneficial for youth to develop intrapersonal competencies such as positive self-evaluations, work ethic, and conscientiousness which are necessary to be successful in college, work, and other domains (Jones, Karoly, Crowley, & Greenberg, 2015).
Success bolsters positive self-evaluations, which include self-esteem, self-efficacy, and competence (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2013).Young people with positive self-evaluations are more likely to be successful in the workplace and college (e.g., Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012).
However, success and failure do not automatically lead to opportunities for positive youth development and can be unproductive.For example, a child may develop a positive self-concept contingent on being successful and when failure occurs it can be debilitating (Neff & Vonk, 2009).Some youth use ineffective coping skills and withdraw from challenges or failure altogether (Grant & Dweck, 2003).When youth employ unproductive coping skills to deal with failure and give up, they miss out on important opportunities for positive development.
While success and failure are commonly experienced in a variety of contexts, including school and sport, youth programs that focus on skill building and cooperation while deemphasizing competition and achievement offer a myriad of participant-centric opportunities for success and failure (e.g., Dworkin & Larson, 2006) and are well-suited for positive youth development (Schwarz & Stolow, 2006).Failure experiences in youth programs can have positive or negative developmental impacts on participants (Dworkin & Larson, 2006).The challenge for practitioners and program staff is to identify the conditions under which failure can have positive developmental potential for youth (Boulay, 2004).Further research needs to be conducted on youths' experiences with failure in recreational and non-competitive settings to generate implications that help program staff maximize failure as an opportunity for positive youth development.Appraisal theory offers a framework to describe youths' experiences with success and failure.

Appraisal Theory
Appraisal theory posits that a person's evaluation (or appraisal) of a situation is essential to examine psychological stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).Lazarus and Folkman (1984) developed a structural model of appraisal called the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (see Figure 1).This model has been adapted to explicate youths' success and failure experiences, and demonstrates that individuals construe the meaning of a situation, which then shapes their emotions, coping, and action tendencies (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Appraisal
After people succeed or fail, they make an appraisal to evaluate whether this situation is a threat to their meaningful goal(s) and well-being (Campbell, Johnson, & Zernicke, 2013).
Success (achieving goal-related performance) is typically appraised as positive and not a threat to one's goals resulting in positive emotions.Failure (the inability to satisfy standards of goalrelated performance) can be a stressor that evokes strong cognitive, emotional, and social responses in youth (Shepherd, 2009).Failure is generally appraised as threatening to one's goals and associated with aversive consequences, which can result in negative emotions or psychological stress (e.g., Sagar, Lavallee, & Spray, 2007).Negative emotions prompt individuals to employ coping strategies to deal with the stressor (Smith & Kirby, 2009).

Coping
Coping is defined as "cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p.141).Coping strategies occur in the form of problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and avoidance-focused coping strategies that aim to control the stressor or its effects (Lazarus, 2000).Problem-focused coping refers to a person's ability to act and change the situation to be more congruent with personal goals (Smith & Kirby, 2009).
Emotion-focused coping refers to the ability to handle emotions and adjust the situation in the case the outcome remains inconsistent with one's goal (Smith & Kirby, 2009).Avoidancefocused coping refers to not dealing directly with the stressor and engaging in behavioral or cognitive distraction (Carver, 2006).Coping strategies influence action tendencies or the "urge to act" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Action Tendencies
Human behavior is built on two distinct categories of action tendencies: approach and withdrawal (Carver, 2006).Approach action tendencies involve youth demonstrating direct focused attention toward an activity and energizing engagement.Withdrawal action tendencies are exhibited when young people minimize their effort and engagement in an activity (e.g., Elliot, Eder, & Harmon-Jones, 2013).Specific forms of coping have been linked to approach or withdrawal action tendencies (Lazarus, 2000).Individuals who use effective coping strategies (problem-or emotion-focused) to deal with stressful failures are more apt to persevere and overcome obstacles (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2010).Individuals who use ineffective coping strategies (avoidancefocused) tend to demonstrate withdrawal from challenges (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2010).

Reappraisal
Reappraisal occurs when an individual modifies their initial appraisal of a situation based on new information from the environment or an individual's reactions.This reappraisal may resist or maintain the stress somebody feels.For example, a situation that is initially appraised as a threat can be reappraised as positive once new information from the situation becomes available (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/| Vol. 12 Issue 3 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2017.502 The Importance of Success and Failure at Camp 22 Summer camps are a suitable setting to study the appraisal of success and failure experiences and the developmental impact for several reasons.First, summer camp has been identified as a fertile context to improve campers' abilities to handle success and failures (Garst & Bruce, 2003).Second, camp programming is flexible (Meier & Henderson, 2011) so youth and counselors have opportunities to exert influence over the success and failure in various aspects of a program (Astroth, 1996).Third, an integral part of camp is the social rapport between the counselor and camper, which results in a safe and supportive environment for failure (Henderson, Whitaker, Bialeschki, Scanlin, & Thurber, 2007).Fourth, success is less clearly defined by grades or win/loss ratio.Thus, summer camp is a distinct context where youth experience success and failure and warrants additional study.

Purpose of the Study
Appraisal theory was used as a framework to describe youths' appraisals of success and failure experiences at summer camp and their responses.Very little is known about how the appraisal process may unfold for youth when experiencing success and failure at summer camp.

Methods
This study employed a deductive qualitative approach to describe youths' experiences with success and failure and their alignment with appraisal theory.Data collection involved semistructured interviews with adolescents.These interviews were then transcribed and coded into theoretically consistent categories.

Sample
The authors recruited a purposive sample to capture a range of experiences with success and failure.Participants came from four not-for-profit camps located in the western region of the United States.The camps involved in the study included two overnight and two day camps to solicit varied perspectives.There were 8 participants from each of the four camps recruited for the sample (n = 32 total).As one of the camps served only females, the sample was imbalanced in this regard and included 20 females and 12 males; all ranged from 12-14 years of age.All participants had attended summer camp for at least a week in the summer session to ensure they had experiences to reflect on.
The sample was relatively homogenous; participants were predominantly Caucasian, were not funded to attend camp through scholarships, and had no known disabilities.Each camp offered their own distinct camp programming with all camps having a focus on positive youth development.The sample captured a broad range of responses from participants and reached saturation where little or no new information was discussed in the interviews (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014).

Procedures
A deductive qualitative approach is based on previous knowledge and the purpose of the study is to test theory (Elo & Kyngas, 2008).Interviews lasted between 20 and 30 minutes each and

Data Analysis
Upon completion of the interviews, the interview audio recordings were transcribed.
Transcriptions were then analyzed using deductive content analysis.Deductive content analysis involves generating a structured categorization matrix of analysis which was based on appraisal theory (e.g., Polit & Beck, 2004).For example, categories were developed for coping strategies in the categorization matrix (problem, emotion, and avoidance) which are based on previous literature.All the data were then reviewed for content and coded based on the identified categories in the categorization matrix (Polit & Beck, 2004).
Once the data were categorized, connecting analysis was used for processual explanation.This analysis involves consciously searching the data for the process and flow of events over time informed by appraisal theory (Maxwell, 2004).
To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the data, intercoder reliability and peer briefing were implemented.Intercoder reliability involved developing definitions for each code and applying the definition to check for consistency in meaning and application between coders (Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013).The raters coded the data and met to discuss any discrepant codes until consensus was reached regarding the final codes.Intercoder reliability was calculated based on percent agreement [inter-rater reliability (r) = 0.99] (Wright, Wilson, Griffin, & Evans, 2010).It is suggested that intercoder reliability should approach 0.90 (Miles & Huberman, 1994).Peer debriefing relied on colleagues' impartial views to codes and themes that were developing (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

RQ1: In what situations at summer camp do youth experience success and failure?
The first research question sought to understand the situations in summer camp where success and failure experiences occur for youth.Youths' experiences with success and failure were coded into two main situations -activity-centric and social-centric.Specific examples of situations where youth experienced success and failure are outlined in Table 1.The numbers in the parentheses after each label refer to the number of participants who reported the success and failure experience.Experiences can be interrelated (e.g., not making friends while in an activity) but were coded based on the central source of success or failure.Not making friends in an activity, for example, was categorized as a social-centric failure.N = 32 adolescents, everyone was asked about their success and failure experiences.

RQ2: How do youth appraise success and failure at summer camp?
The second research question sought to understand youths' appraisals of success and failure experiences.For success, the participants appraised the experience as positive (n = 27) due to being novel, important to them, or making them feel good.The experience was a success because they had met their personal goals (n = 26).Youth experienced positive affect (n = 31) such as feeling happy, excited, or proud after succeeding (e.g., "It made me really happy and made me feel a lot better about the rest of my day").For failure, youth appraised failure experiences as negative (n = 18) or threatening to one's goals; their personal goals had not been met (n = 28).Many participants indicated experiencing negative affect (n = 31) such as sadness and being down after failing (e.g., "Being down a little bit, made you feel sad or left out and lonely").
on the learning process), such as "to climb.I'm not a great climber so to get better at climbing and test my skills."Others were unrealistic or unproductive (i.e., focused on the outcome) such as to "be the star of the [archery] program" and "get a bullseye."Some of the goals expressed were implicit and likely emerged as the youth progressed through the experience.For example, one camper sought to "not make a big fool of myself in front of so many people that know how to do it [a front flip]." RQ3: How do youth respond to success and cope with failure at summer camp?
The third research question sought to understand youths' responses to success and coping strategies used to deal with failure.Success increased youths' self-efficacy beliefs (n = 8) and motivation to continue participation (n = 11; "I just felt good and kept going on").Youth employed coping strategies to deal with their failure experience.Many youths employed effective coping strategies by using problem-or emotion-focused coping (n = 19; "Sort of just laughed with our friends about all the things we did wrong because we realized all the problems we had with the planning and all the things we were doing that could have made it better so we just started laughing about it.And discussed what we could do better next time").Other youth demonstrated avoidance-focused coping (n = 9; "I went and did other stuff.I sort of brushed it off.I do regret not [trying the activity]").

RQ4: What action tendencies do youth demonstrate after failure?
The fourth research question sought to understand the action tendencies youth demonstrated after failure.Youth who employed problem-or emotion-focused coping went on to demonstrate sustained motivation and went on to persevere (n = 19; "I put those emotions into trying harder and trying to move faster so I could get there in time").While most participants persevered after failing, some used avoidance-focused coping strategies and withdrew completely from the experience (n = 9; "I didn't ever try it again").

RQ5: How do youth reappraise failure at summer camp?
The fifth research question sought to understand how youth reappraise failure.Youth engaged in positive reappraisal (n = 26) by attaching positive meaning to the situation.Participants emphasized that the experience was useful and an opportunity for learning.For example, one

Discussion
Young people engage in the appraisal process to evaluate success and failure experiences at summer camp.Campers' experiences with success and failure are predominantly activity-and social-centric.While it is important for camp practitioners to be aware of the situations at camp where success and failure occur, success and failure are less dependent on the situation per se (Siemer, Mauss, & Gross, 2007).Many times, campers participated in comparable activities but had very different experiences with success or failure.For example, many campers participated in a rock climbing program at camp; some succeeded while others failed.So why do some youth experience success and others experience failure in seemingly similar activities?
Appraisals play a key role; young people will respond differently to the same or similar situation depending on how they subjectively interpret or appraise the situation (Siemer et al., 2007).

Appraisals
Successful experiences were typically appraised as positive.Since these situations were not perceived as a threat to campers' goals, participants did not experience stress.Their responses to success included increased self-efficacy, and individuals were motivated to maintain positive affective states, which aligns with previous research (e.g., Farrington et al., 2012).Failure experiences were generally appraised as negative and a threat to campers' goals.Once campers perceived a threat there were opportunities for youth to develop important skills such as effective coping and perseverance (Farrington et al., 2012).

Coping and Action Tendencies
The type of coping strategies and action tendencies youth demonstrated after failure were generally interconnected.Youth that employed effective coping strategies (e.g., problem-and emotion-focused) went on to persevere after failure.For example, some youths sought out information on why they failed and problem-solved (Carroll, 2013).To mitigate negative emotions, others used strategies such as positive reinterpretation of the event.However, the coping responses youth used to deal with failure did not entirely contribute to positive development and were at times unproductive.
Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/| Vol. 12 Issue 3 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2017.502 The Importance of Success and Failure at Camp 28 Some youth employed avoidance-focused strategies (e.g., not dealing directly with the stressor) and reported withdrawing from failure, which is consistent with previous research (Traeger, 2013).Young peoples' unproductive coping responses typically involved behavioral or cognitive distraction to cope with stressful failures, which is considered maladaptive (Hampel & Petermann, 2006).For example, some youth would participate in another activity or make light of the situation without ever processing the failure experience.These youths may have missed out on opportunities for important learning and development.
These findings are concerning, as developing these unproductive coping skills can be predictors of ineffective coping later in life (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001).Young people with an inability to cope effectively are predisposed to mental health and behavioral issues (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007).Chronic unproductive coping with stressful events can have long-lasting effects resulting in depression, anxiety, and antisocial acts (Compas et al., 2001).Fortunately, coping is malleable and the use of more successful coping strategies can be taught through coping socialization (Gutman & Schoon, 2013).
Coping Socialization.Summer camps may be able to help youth embrace failure as a learning opportunity through coping socialization (Aldwin, Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Taylor, 2010).
Coping socialization is an adult-initiated process where young people can learn effective coping strategies via direct instruction, coaching, and modeling of coping behaviors (Aldwin et al., 2010).Camp counselors could play the role of a socializing agent that scaffolds how children manage their emotions and influences the coping behavior of youth (Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke, 2007).For example, camp counselors might engage in coaching during an emotional experience which involves validating or labeling their camper's negative emotions and teaching effective coping strategies.Furthermore, coaching may occur after an emotional event during reflective general discussions or debriefs (Gentzler, Ramsey, & Black, 2015).Additionally, program staff can filter the failure experiences youth are exposed to by highlighting the growth and learning potential of the circumstance (e.g., Kliewer et al., 2006).For example, camp counselors may socialize campers to engage in positive reappraisal and view difficulties in activities as challenges that are surmountable with effort (Abaied, Wagner, & Sanders, 2014).Through these processes, staff may be able to help young people to engage in emotion-or problemfocused coping mechanisms and minimize avoidance coping so youth go on to persevere in the face of failure.
Flexible Goal Adjustment.To properly understand coping it is important to examine individuals' goals that are threatened by failure (Aldwin et al., 2010).At times, the stated goals were Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/| Vol. 12 Issue 3 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2017.502 The Importance of Success and Failure at Camp 29 unproductive and unrealistic for youth (Grant & Dweck, 2003).For example, the camper who set a goal to get a bullseye in archery had never participated in the activity before.This individual did not have the experience or skills necessary to achieve this goal.Encouraging a young person to demonstrate effective coping and rigid perseverance towards this unrealistic goal may not be beneficial.The consequences from this approach can result in repeated failures or a "pile up" of stressors which can lead youth to drop out of organized activities (Dworkin & Larson, 2006).At other times, the goals youth used to make appraisals of failure experiences were unconscious and implicit.While implicit goals are just as important in driving achievement thoughts and behaviors (Bargh & Morsella, 2008), they are difficult for program staff to address proactively before a situation unfolds.
Program staff may consider ways for youth to reflect on both implicit and explicit goals after failure and reshape participant's unrealistic goals for novel activities to be more realistic.One way to restore well-being after failure is to intentionally withdraw effort and commitment from goals that are no longer attainable, and to reengage in substitute meaningful goals (Kraaij & Garnefski, 2015).This approach can help reframe failure experiences for youth as merely a lack of experience and not ability.Goals should be a realistic "stretch" beyond a child's capabilities that gradually increase in difficulty as they get better at tasks (Vygotsky, 1978).Staff can facilitate this reframing by engaging youth in conversations about their goals, inquiring about what the young person learned, and emphasizing the importance of the learning process, not the end product.If goal-setting is an explicit component of a program, staff can help shape these goals to be attainable and realistic prior to an activity.

Reappraisal
One of the strengths of the summer camp context is the opportunity to reappraise failure.
Ultimately, while success is important to youth development, failure in the face of challenge is an inherent aspect of camp (Duerden, Taniguchi, & Widmer, 2012).Campers expressed they fell off the rock climbing wall, lost while playing games, and did not finish hikes.They mentioned being closed off, withdrawing from social situations, and not being a part of the ingroup.However, campers also reported being able to ponder these experiences, reconceptualize them as learning opportunities, and retry activities they initially failed to complete; social failures were also reappraised and subsequently revisited.While data on the reasons for this successful reappraisal remain lacking, several aspects of camp may encourage reappraisal in the face of failure.Camp is regularly reported to afford high camper-staff rapport, peer support, and emotional safety (Henderson, Thurber, Scanlin, & Bialeschki, 2007).This level of social support may allow campers to more easily revisit failures.Likewise, the transient nature of camp, which often socially resets from week to week as campers depart and join, may offer a safer space to experiment with risks and failures without the fear of long-term consequences (e.g., Arnold, Bourdeau, & Nagele, 2005).

Staff Influence
The adult-child relationship is one of the primary factors that determine the effectiveness of developmental settings (e.g., Hamre, 2014).Camp staff can play a large role in helping frame failure as an opportunity for learning such as employing coping and processing techniques.To be able to help youth reflect on failure experiences program staff need to have a sense of being "in-tune" or "present" with participants (e.g., Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011).This is essential as many times failure experiences were goals and experiences not explicitly shared with counselors and at times were internalized struggles.Youth program staff need to practice a certain amount of intuitiveness to be able to read when young people may have experienced failure and inquire when necessary.Once dialogue regarding a possible failure experience has been initiated it is essential that there is reciprocity during the interaction (Wong, Zimmerman, & Parker, 2010).Failure can at times be a vulnerable and sensitive topic, counselors should continue to strive for a supportive and safe environment where youth feel comfortable sharing and processing these experiences.

Gender and Camp Differences
While not central to the study, it's important to discuss differences in adolescents' responses to failure based on gender and camp.Gender was conflated with camp in this study, as one of the camps served only girls.A larger percentage of males demonstrated avoidance-focused coping strategies which led to withdrawal from challenge.This is consistent with previous literature that indicates females tend to demonstrate more effective approach coping by problem-solving and seeking social support where males tend to demonstrate avoidance-focused coping (Eschenbeck, Kohlmann, & Lohaus, 2007).
Adolescents' responses to failure differed for some camps.There are various factors that might have affected the experiences of campers at different camp sites such as staff, staff training, culture, or debriefing techniques.One possible explanation for camp differences is that withdrawal from challenges is less likely to occur in supportive environments that provide young people with a social support system (Sanders, Munford, Liebenberg, & Ungar, 2017).The extent to which a youth program has a supportive culture can be a useful resource or a constraint that may influence the types of coping youth use after stressful events (Aryee, Chu, Kim, & Ryu, 2013;Parkes, 1986).However, whether a camp had a supportive culture (or other unique differences) was not accounted for but could be a line of inquiry in future research.

Limitations
This study does have some limitations and the reader may wish to keep these caveats in mind when interpreting findings.Like many studies, the research was vulnerable to the biases of the author (Charmaz, 2014).To reduce bias, a faculty member and another graduate student provided a supplementary perspective when assessing codes, general themes, and overall findings.Also, there may have been bias in participant selection (Sargeant, 2012).Even though the researcher tried to interview adolescents from day and overnight summer camps to get varied perspectives, the camps that participated in the study were all located in the western region of the United States.The sample was relatively homogenous in terms of race, socioeconomic status, and ability.Due to the limited sample, the findings may not generalize to other populations not-for-profit camps may serve such as youth who live in poverty, youth with disabilities, and youth who are marginalized.Youth who are marginalized may experience cumulative disadvantages in their everyday lives that can undermine their positive selfevaluations and instead may benefit from additional opportunities to demonstrate mastery and experience success in youth programs instead of failure (e.g., Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007).Likewise, readers should know the notion of overcoming failure through effective coping, perseverance, and effort communicated throughout the paper is based on meritocracy (the philosophy that success is based on ability, talent, and effort without the consideration of Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/| Vol. 12 Issue 3 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2017.502 The Importance of Success and Failure at Camp 32 various privileges).This ideology is not comprehensive and may be inappropriate for youth who are marginalized as the systemic inequalities these youth face are overlooked.

Conclusion
The findings of this research describe youths' appraisals and responses to success and failure experiences at camp.Success and failure experiences predominantly occurred in activity-or social-centric situations in program settings.Youth generally appraise success as positive and failure as a threat which can have positive developmental potential for self-efficacy, effective coping, and perseverance.This study highlights that failure experiences are important to understand because they can be unproductive and disrupt youths' engagement in positive youth development frameworks implemented by organized youth programs and summer camps.
Ineffective coping with failure experiences can interfere with important learning outcomes, the development of essential skills such as useful coping and perseverance, and can lead to withdrawal or dropping out from organized activities.Dedicated efforts by camp staff to help youth reappraise and frame failure experiences as an opportunity for learning may help encourage positive and productive responses to failure.With this additional effort from camp staff, summer camps may be fertile settings for youth to learn via a balance of success and failure experiences.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Transactional Model of Stress and Coping adapted from Lazarus and Folkman (1984) Therefore, this study sought to address the following research questions: RQ1: In what situations at summer camp do youth experience success and failure?RQ2: How do youth appraise success and failure at summer camp?RQ3: How do youth respond to success and cope with failure at summer camp?RQ4: What action tendencies do youth demonstrate after failure?RQ5: How do youth reappraise failure at summer camp?
involved semi-structured open-ended questions designed to gain a deeper understanding of experiences and related responses.Questions sought to gain insight into the success and failure experiences, which were informed by previous literature.Representative questions included:  Can you describe an experience at camp with success/failure? What was your goal going into this experience? Why did this experience stand out?  How did you feel after this experience? Why do you think you succeeded/failed? How did you respond after succeeding/failing?, and  What did you learn from the experience?Interviews took place over a three-month period during the summer of 2016.All camper interviews were conducted in-person, onsite at the designated camps.All parents and interviewees completed necessary consent and assent forms.The interviews were recorded to ensure accuracy.

Table 1 . Success and Failure Experiences at Summer Camp
Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/|Vol. 12 Issue 3 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2017.502TheImportance of Success and Failure at Camp 27 young person indicated, "I learned failing isn't bad; it happens all the time to everyone.You will always get another chance to try again".
Future research should investigate the impact success and failure experiences have on longterm learning.Success and failure have an impact on the development of important 21 st century skills such as self-efficacy, effective coping, and perseverance.It is essential to explore further if and how these 21 st century developmental outcomes from youth programs have had a longterm impact on individuals' in their college and careers.Also, further research can inform how distinctly these associated developmental outcomes are supported through organized youth programs instead of other contexts such as academics or work.