A Comparative Examination of How Program Design Components Influence Youth Leadership-Skill Development

A growing interest in how adolescents can prepare for the workforce has contributed to the development of positive youth development (PYD) programs focused on youth leadership. This study explored what mechanisms and design components support leadership skill development among youth participating in 3 different PYD leadership programs. All of these programs involve high school students, have a focus on leadership, and emphasize college and workforce readiness. The aims of the study were to (a) examine what commonalities and differences in program design components contribute to skill development, (b) identify what leadership skills youth develop by participating in PYD leadership programs, and (c) explore what underlying mechanisms youth perceive contribute to their skill development over time. A total of 3 focus groups were conducted, each lasting 90 minutes, with a total of 18 youth (i.e., 6 youth per program). Nvivo, a qualitative software, and thematic analysis were used to distill common and differential themes related to the program design components the participants recognized as integral parts of the programs that contributed to their leadership skill development. Common skills developed across all 3 programs included working in groups, public speaking, and problem solving, yet differences in skills were also reported and linked to differences in program design. Additional findings showed several underlying mechanisms supported leadership skill development among youth participants. Findings can Journal of Youth Development | http://jyd.pitt.edu/ | Vol. 15 Issue 6 DOI 10.5195/jyd.2020.868 Program Design Influence on Leadership Skills 92 inform the development of effective youth leadership PYD programs, thereby further supporting youth in achieving their goals; avoiding harmful behaviors; and developing the competencies, confidence, and values youth need to successfully transition to adulthood.

Leadership-skill-development programming and activities are commonly integrated into broader PYD programs in the following ways: • offering skill-building sessions or partnerships with organizations that connect youth with future college or career options (Bates et al., 2019;Ferrari et al., 2008;Thomas et al., 2017); • building community-service opportunities into project-based curricula (Lakin & Mahoney, 2006); • serving on school or community leadership committees and decision-making bodies (Akiva et al., 2014;Kelsey, 2020;Kelsey & Fuhrman, 2020;MacNeil & McClean, 2006;Ramey, 2013); • giving explicit instruction in teamwork, presentation, and other skills essential for success in the work world (Cochran & Ferrari, 2009); • inviting families to share in the learning going on in the school and/or the communitybased program (Eccles & Gootman, 2002); • guiding youth as they lead programming to address social issues in their schools and communities (Kirschner & Ginwright, 2012;Youth Speak Out Coalition & Zimmerman, 2007); and • engaging in community-based participatory action research (Anyon et al., 2018;Branquinho et al., 2020;Ozer, 2017;Suleiman et al., 2019).
Although these are common strategies, PYD leadership programs often differ in how they are designed and implemented. Due to these variations, scholars advocate that critical comparisons of youth leadership programs are needed to further understand how their underlying mechanisms, practices, and processes can contribute to the development of specific skills and positive developmental outcomes for youth (Durlak & DuPre, 2008;Kress, 2006;Larson, 2011;Liu et al., 2020;MacNeil & McClean, 2006;Mueller et al., 2011;Parkhill et al., 2018;Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). if any, design elements achieve specific outcomes for youth (Ciocanel et al., 2017;Durlak et al., 2010;Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2016). For example, studies may indicate that participants gained leadership skills from their involvement but lack an explanation of how these skills were developed (e.g., Moran et al., 2019). For practitioners, findings can point toward underlying mechanisms that make a difference , and for what populations, to inform the implementation of effective PYD leadership programs (i.e., getting inside the "black box"; Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2010).

Study Purpose and Context
To explore how youth perceive their leadership-skill development, we solicited youth perspectives on their participation in PYD leadership programs. We recruited youth from three PYD leadership programs within the Ohio 4-H network that used one or more different activities to address leadership-skill development (see aforementioned list of programming and activities). We conducted three 90-minute focus groups with six youth from each PYD leadership program. We used an interpretivist qualitative design and content analysis to understand the experiences of the youth participants (Cohen et al., 2007). Our study was guided by the following research questions: (a) What commonalities and differences in PYD program design components contribute to leadership-skill development? (b) What leadership skills do youth develop when participating in PYD leadership-skill development programs? and (c) What underlying program mechanisms do youth perceive contribute to their leadership-skill development over time? Table 1 summarizes characteristics of program participants, which were provided by program leaders. Next, we provide an overview of each program and demographics gathered from adult leaders.

Job Experience and Training Program
Adventure Central is in a large community center developed through a partnership between OSU Extension's 4-H Youth Development program and Five Rivers MetroParks. Youth participate in after-school programming throughout the year, and in the summer the program supports youth-led service and workforce readiness (Ferrari et al., 2008;Ferrari et al., 2009). To be eligible, youth must currently attend or have previously attended Adventure Central for afterschool programming. To be selected for the Job Experience and Training (JET) program, youth must complete an application and an interview. JET's focus is on developing youth's 21 st century skills through parks and recreation-related career experiences and by providing service to the public. Youth deliver 30 hours of service weekly over an 8-week period, some in paid positions in real-life workforce settings and others as volunteers at one of six MetroParks facilities.

Method Participants
To recruit youth from each of the three PYD programs, we used a convenience sampling approach. We asked program leaders to send recruitment emails to the parents/guardians of the youth participants in their respective program (N =133). Youth who expressed interest received parent permission forms (for those under 18) or consent forms (for those 18 and older) via email. As recommended by Stewart et al. (2007), we aimed to recruit six to 12 youth for each focus group. Once we identified at least six youth interested in participating in the focus groups from each program, we scheduled a 90-minute focus group interview in a public location (one for each program). Program leaders then reached out to other youth in the program and made them aware of the focus group time, date, and location to try to recruit more youth participants. Recruitment efforts resulted in six youth from each program participating in the scheduled focus groups. We collected consent forms and youth signed assent forms prior to each focus group. Participants received a light meal (i.e., pizza, drinks, and dessert) as an incentive for participation. See Table 2 for demographics on the focus group participants.  They conducted the other two focus groups independently to avoid interfacing with youth participants with whom they had past affiliations. This decision was made to mitigate risks for respondent bias (i.e., youth telling a familiar researcher what they wanted to hear) and to allow youth to share their experiences openly. Focus group interviews followed a semi-structured interview script covering the following topics: • motivation for participation in the leadership program; • gains in knowledge, skills, and information about leadership; • attitudes, will, and desire to be a leader; • activities perceived to promote their skill development; • relationships with peers and adults; • what youth liked/disliked about programs; and • how youth perceived what they learned that would benefit them in the future.
Each focus group lasted approximately 90 minutes; they were audio-recorded and later transcribed. All procedures were approved by the OSU Institutional Review Board.

Data Analysis
Initially, we reviewed audio recording transcripts for overall content. Using NVivo software, we analyzed the data through inductive content analysis procedures, allowing for the identification of themes and sub-themes within each area through data coding (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). We made multiple passes through these data, first identifying individual quotations from the focus group interviews that represented single items. These quotations served as the raw primary data. Next, we coded these data into mutually exclusive classifications, and we revised the language to further clarify themes that we identified (as recommended by Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Then we aimed to distill how each program may contribute to the development of specific knowledge and skills. We looked across the focus groups from the three programs and identified commonalities and differences related to program design components and mechanisms. Throughout the process, categories and themes were reshaped, modified, omitted, and added to other themes until no further categories could be created. To address credibility, dependability, and confirmability, the researchers who conducted the focus group interviews first worked to reach an acceptable level of intercoder agreement. Other team members also reviewed the transcriptions and made notes on themes to work toward agreement. Then all team members discussed the coding process and assisted in triangulating preliminary themes to come to agreement on the final set of themes (Cascio et al., 2019).
Reflexivity is an important component of qualitative inquiry. We identified themes using inductive processes, allowing for youths' experiences and perceptions to frame our understanding of how the programs influenced their skill development. However, biases and the social positionality of those who conducted the focus groups, namely two white female researchers who did not know the youth participants, may have influenced the youth participants' responses. However, both women also are practitioners who are trained to approach youth as experts of their own experiences. Further, the use of focus groups allowed for participants to drive the discussions and share their experiences with little intervention from the researchers.

Program Design Components
Through the perspectives of the youth participants, we identified commonalities and differences in program design components specific to their engagement, participation, and skill development. Two commonalities in program design that we identified were access to and relationships with caring adult leaders and the opportunity to work with younger youth. Three different program design components were identified, including application and interview processes, working in a real-life workforce setting, and a youth-led decision-making model.

Caring Adult Leaders
Youth participating in all three PYD leadership programs described access to and relationships with caring adult leaders as an important design component. Youth in YLA described how they knew adult leaders cared about them, but also how adult leaders gave them time to "grow and build the program without a script." Youth in YLA referred to adults as "friends" and "like Like you see them as family sometimes too. They really understand you because they took the effort to get to know you in the first place. It's like they're just not there to facilitate.
Youth from JET also referred to adult leaders as "family." For example, a male youth leader described his close-knit relationship with a director of the program. Youth perceived that having access to, support from, and encouragement from caring adult leaders, even when it pushed them out of their comfort zone, played a large role in their engagement and participation and in their development of leadership skills.

Working With Younger Youth
Another common program design component embedded in each of the three PYD leadership programs was the opportunity to work with younger youth, which was described in two ways.
First, it was described as a part of the program that created a ladder for youth to obtain entry into leadership positions. The following quote from a JET youth leader describes how working with younger youth is perceived as fun, but also encouraging for younger youth to become future youth leaders.
It's fun to come back and know that you're gonna see either new kids come in and get to know them or kids that you've seen like from six to 12 or six to 10 and see how much they've grown and see how much they've matured and like see them apply . . . talking about applying for JET and I'm like "Okay, like, you do that! You take my spot." Youth leaders also described working with younger youth as a program design component that helped them practice specific skills, including public speaking, building relationships, controlling emotions, being responsible, having patience, and working in groups.

Interview and Application Process
Two of the programs, TLC and JET, had an interview and application process. In turn, youth felt they learned specific interviewing skills as a result of these design components. A TLC youth leader reported, The most impressive part of TLC for me is that if you are interviewing to be an officer, the junior advisors, and junior officers and those who are leaving offices, are the ones who select the teen, and then if you apply to [be a] committee chair, they interview you. So not only if you are interviewing do you gain skills and get to practice, but you also get to see the other side and think, "What do I look for in this person?" and "What do I want for this position?" and so it gives you such a well-rounded idea of what you are walking into.
Several youths mentioned not being accepted into the JET program upon their first attempt.
These youth perceived the opportunity to receive feedback and have another opportunity to succeed as a program component that greatly influence their self-talk, and in turn, their resilience to try again. As a JET youth leader described, As a result of participating in internships that took place in real-life workforce settings, youth in JET also reported greater career readiness, including awareness of their own work ethic, as well as the importance of responsibility and accountability.

Youth-Led Decision-Making Model
TLC used a youth-led decision-making design approach that participants felt influenced their skill development. They described how all their activities and meetings were led by the youth leaders, which created opportunities for these youth to engage in building skills such as public speaking, problem-solving, and working in groups. One TLC youth leader described how the youth-led approach helped youth learn valuable skills. This youth leader stated, I think they are letting us grow because they aren't over our shoulder like tell us "this has to get done." So, they are like letting you be you, and so when you go out to college you are ready for the real world. With 4-H being a youth-led organization, adults like aren't supposed to be involved. Like yes, they are there to advise us, but they are not supposed to be the ones running the meetings, and in order to have that opportunity they can't be involved, and it allows us to grow as people.

Leadership-Skill Development
We distilled several common themes from youths' reports of the skills they developed. First, youth in all three programs described greater understanding, knowledge, or awareness of the role of a leader. Youth mentioned how participation helped them learn three additional skills: working in groups, problem-solving, and public speaking.
We also identified five differences in relation to knowledge and skills. As discussed previously, the TLC and JET programs had application and interview processes. Youth in these programs discussed learning skills such as how to interview for a job. Another difference that youth in YLA and JET reported was learning how to write a resume and learning about responsibility; they also felt more knowledgeable about different careers. Youth in JET also reported links between their internships in real-life workforce settings and their knowledge and awareness of the importance of work ethic and accountability. In Table 3 we summarize program design components and knowledge and skills described by youth in each program. The first day everybody's like "Let's get to know each other." Not even the first day. We have an orientation week of nothing but activities and getting to know each other. Going out, doing different things. . . . We would share our stories from each of our groups, 'cause each of our groups are very different.
Incorporating time and space for youth leaders to have fun where they can connect, laugh, and find common ground appeared to be an increasingly important mechanism supportive of youth coming to the programs and remaining involved.

Safe, Supportive, Accepting, and Motivating Climate
Youth from all three programs reported feeling "supported" and "accepted," and a sense of high

Experiential Opportunities and Activities to Practice Skills
Youth in all three PYD programs reported involvement in experiential learning opportunities and activities. They described how teaching younger youth, either as junior counselors or working on committees, gave them opportunities to practice their communication skills, especially public speaking in front of groups. Youth also mentioned that the opportunity to learn in an environment where there were fewer consequences if and when they made a mistake made them more likely to try new things. Fewer consequences also appeared to make youth feel more willing to try new things and process failing because supports were in place to help them work on their skills. One youth leader in JET mentioned what he liked about the program.
So, it's basically to teach people how to get a job and what to do if you're in a job, and there's kind of like a training process. Like if you mess up here it . . . consequences aren't as bad as if you were to mess up at a real job.
Youth in TLC and YLA shared similar statements relating to how adults or older counselors were available to support them if they failed, and they described several examples where adults or peers encouraged them to try again.

Sibling and Peer Engagement
Youth in all three programs discussed the involvement of siblings and older peers. Youth reported wanting to participate because an older brother or sister or an older youth had a good experience. A TLC youth leader mentioned, "Both of my siblings were on Ambassadors, so I decided to do that and then when I did, I realized it was really amazing." Another JET youth leader described why he wanted to be in the program: Mine was definitely legacy. I know I keep talking about my siblings, but not just my siblings. . . . I feel like we have generational. . . . JET's like all I've seen. I've seen like my brother's group, . . . and then they passed it down to my sister and their whole generation were JET teens while my brother was now the group leader, so it was like they were the group leaders now.

Sense of Pride
Engagement and participation also centered on a sense of pride youth felt when participating in the programs. Youth mentioned that their engagement was facilitated by wanting to "help others" or "be good role models." Others mentioned older youth who "helped me when I was in the program" or a desire to "make my mom proud." One youth in JET described wanting to make the director of the Adventure Central and his mom proud. He described, My mom is very proud of me to be in this program. One, is because Mr. A was like a father figure, so it was like my dad passed away when I was younger, . . . like she knew . . . she had three boys. She knew coming up we all were gonna probably head down a bad road, so sending us here was like giving us a second chance before we even started. . . . she was encouraged 'cause at first I didn't want to come here. I was like, "Man, I gotta come here every day after school?" It was just like another couple hours of school. . . . but once I started coming here it was like she started seeing my grades improve. She started seeing me communicate more. So, she felt like AC was . . . basically like their motto, "AC is the place to be." A sense of pride in being leaders to others, opportunities to be acknowledged, and a positive status were important mechanisms to engage youth in each of the three PYD programs.

Discussion
Involvement in PYD programs focused on leadership-skill development may be highly protective and supportive of positive outcomes for youth. Youth in all three of the PYD leadership programs reported developing important skills and knowledge associated with leadership. Our results align with and lend support to youth leadership programming based on PYD principles (Eccles & Gootman, 2002;Hamilton et al., 2004;Witt & Caldwell, 2018). There were several common design components that appeared to facilitate positive leadership outcomes for youth.
These findings are in alignment with studies showing that the "Big Three," including positive relationships, skill building, and leadership activities, are important components of effective PYD programs (Lerner et al., 2014). We found that caring adult leaders and the opportunity to work with younger youth facilitated skill development for youth participants. Youth reported that adult figures knew their names, knew about their interests, and were available and willing to provide emotional support like friends and family.
Further, caring adults were described as those who provided instrumental supports such as information, content, and structure within the programs. These results also align with findings noting that relationships that facilitate both instrumental and emotional support for youth are increasingly protective (Eccles & Gootman, 2002;Grossman & Bulle, 2006;Jones & Deutsch, 2011;Spencer & Rhodes, 2014;K. Walker, 2011). Our findings also align with those from America's Promise Alliance (2020), which show that young people with formal and informal mentors in their lives are more likely to stay in school, enroll in college, become active in sports, become leaders, and pursue higher goals than those who do not have mentoring in their lives.
As a result, we argue that ensuring youth have opportunities to build relationships with caring adult figures is critical to successful PYD programming and also to the development of leadership skills. These practices are especially important given the detrimental impacts of negative interactions (Albright & Ferrari, 2010;Buehler et al., 2020;Dworkin & Larson, 2007).
We also found that the program design component where youth work with younger youth and experience a ladder approach to attaining leadership positions aligns with past work in the PYD field. Ferrari and Risch (2013) found that when youth have opportunities to grow into and grow from their roles in PYD programs, participants achieved positive outcomes. Cochran and Ferrari (2009) described how a natural progression from participant to teen leader, a strategy they termed "growing your own" (p. 19), facilitated skill development and workplace readiness.
Differences in program design components included the application and interview processes that appeared to influence youth perceptions of their interviewing skills. Further, the application and interview processes may have influenced other personal or social skill outcomes. Several youths described not gaining access to the program on their first attempt. Youth reported either feeling encouraged to try again to make their program leaders or families proud or to try again because they wanted to follow in their siblings' or older peers' footsteps. The application and interview design component, along with these mechanisms underlying their motivations to reapply, may facilitate conditions where youth face and overcome adversity. For example, the application and interview process may not only help youth develop interviewing skills, but may also instill perseverance for long-term goals.
Two other design components differed among programs. The JET program offered internships in real-life workforce settings. Among the youth in all three programs, youth in JET were those who more frequently reported gaining knowledge about the importance of work ethic and accountability. Hence, programs that place youth in workforce settings may be those more likely to contribute to career readiness outcomes and the development of 21 st century skills.
TLC's distinct design component was the youth-led decision-making model. Youth in TLC described feeling empowered and presented with strong communication skills likely due to their role in providing their perspectives on the organization's programming. The extent to which programs emphasize inclusion of the youth voice appears to be a positive element to consider when intentionally designing youth leadership programs (Cater et al., 2013;Serido et al., 2011).
Participation in these PYD leadership programs helped youth develop prosocial skills, such as communication and problem-solving skills; participation also supported youth in gaining practical components of career readiness (see Table 3). These outcomes are important given the rising importance of career readiness and nonacademic skills in the workplace (Burrus et al., 2013;Deming, 2017;Lerner et al., 2006;Lippman et al., 2015). To date, many employers note that new entrants to the workforce arrive unprepared (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Hence programs that allow youth to practice skills prior to entry into the workforce and center their designs around a "value-added" approach (Cochran & Ferrari, 2009)

Implications
PYD leadership programs such as those studied here may promote positive outcomes for youth (e.g., college and career readiness, leadership). These findings have several practical implications for PYD leaders. Findings point to the critical role of employing caring and supportive adult leaders in youth-serving contexts. A potential application of this finding is to intentionally train adult leaders in recognizing and implementing components of effective PYD practice. Trainings should emphasize giving youth workers the tools, time, space, and strategies to reinforce positive behaviors and to build relationships. Adult leaders can also be encouraged to capitalize on times when youth make mistakes and to use these experiences as teachable moments to help youth master new skills. Through an intentional focus on the training of adult leaders, programs can seek to cultivate climates where youth are exposed to opportunities, feel empowered to try things, and engage in activities that further develop their skills.
Second, designing programs that have multiple levels of youth involvement appears to be important to the development of leadership skills. The multiple levels of involvement create a climate that keeps youth engaged, keeps youth working toward higher leadership positions, and engages youth in appropriate levels of challenge. Youth in the focus groups liked working toward something and setting goals in the program. Program leaders can create hierarchies within their programs or partner with other PYD contexts to provide opportunities for youth to stay engaged over time.
One final implication speaks to the need for advocacy and equitable access in the field of PYD.
To meet the growing demands of today's economy, there is a need in communities, especially those serving at-risk youth, to offer PYD programming. In our study, two programs served a population of youth who identified as predominantly racial minorities and one program served a large number of youth living in poverty. These youth are notably from groups that are often underrepresented in higher education and those more likely to experience the intergenerational effects of poverty, including higher rates of unemployment (de Brey et al., 2019). Our findings support the notion that PYD leadership programs may be one long-term, protective strategy for leaders and policymakers to invest in to address issues of inequity in life-skill and social-skill development, especially to mitigate long-term social and economic risks for adolescents.

Limitations
This study is not without limitations, with the primary issue being transferability to other youth programs. These three programs may be unique in their program designs. The sample size was relatively small; however, Guest et al.'s (2016) study determined that between three to six focus groups may be sufficient to identify relevant themes. Another limitation is that youth included in the study may potentially be only those who had positive experiences or felt motivated to participate. Although difficult, researchers can attempt to interview those who do not persist in leadership programs to further understand their experiences and what components are not conducive to positive outcomes (e.g., see Albright & Ferrari, 2010;Harrington et al., 2011). In the future, researchers can conduct mixed methods studies with youth from various demographic backgrounds, youth in other PYD programs, and program leaders; review curriculum documents; and conduct observations to triangulate the data regarding intentionality of program design, underlying mechanisms, and program outcomes.

Conclusion
Young people can attain several individual and societal benefits when they have experiences and opportunities to become more successful leaders. By better understanding which components and mechanisms are effective in promoting positive outcomes in PYD leadershipskill-development programs, program coordinators, clinicians, social workers, teachers, and PYD staff also can use the information gleaned from this study to design curricula, interventions, and programs that better assist youth in developing 21 st century and nonacademic skills that can help them successfully transition into adulthood and life outside of school.