• Home
• What is Service-Learning
  • Service-Learning is...
  • History
  • Glossary
  • Media Guide
  • Email Discussion Lists and Newsletters
• Instant Info: Fact Sheets, Bibliographies...
  • A-Z Topics
  • Bibliographies
  • Fact Sheets
  • Hot Topics
  • Quick Guides
  • Resources for Kids and Teens
  • Resources for Parents
  • Tool Kits
• Library
  • Library Catalog (print and selected full-text)
  • e-Library (full-text resources)
  • Accessing the Physical Collection
  • Promote Your Project
  • Reference & Referral
• Learn and Serve America
  • About Learn and Serve America
  • Learn and Serve America Fact Sheet
  • Learn and Serve America Grantee and Subgrantee Information Page
  • Learn and Serve America e-Clips
  • LSA-News
  • Bring Learning to Life
  • Honor Roll
• Search Options
  • A-Z Topics
  • Site-wide Search
  • Library Catalog (print and selected full-text)
  • e-Library (full-text only)
  • Links Collection
  • Sample Forms and Templates
  • SLICE
  • Funding Sources
  • Conferences & Events
  • Program Directory
  • Effective Practices
  • Teacher Reference Center (EBSCO)
  • Search Tips
• Order Publications
• About Us
  • About NSLC
  • Clearinghouse Staff
  • Program Advisors
  • Learn and Serve America
  • The Corporation for National & Community Service
  • ETR Associates
  • Contact Us

> Instant Info > Fact Sheets > Community-Based Fact Sheets > Service-Learning with Disadvantaged Youth

	Source: Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, Search Institute, December 2007
	On average, it’s harder to grow up well when you live in poverty. Indeed, low socioeconomic status (SES) is negatively linked to a wide range of indicators of child and adolescent well-being (Beauvais & Jensen 2003; Evans 2004; Hawkins et. al., 2000). At the same time, growing up poor does not seal one’s destiny. Other factors are as or more important in predicting youth outcomes and helping young people be resilient in the face of the challenges they encounter (e.g., Caughy, O’Campo, & Brodsky, 1999; Henderson & Mapp, 2002, Scales et al., 2005). Service-learning can be an important strategy for building these strengths and resources into young people’s lives (National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, 2004).
		Benefits of Service-Learning for Disadvantaged Youth
		Young people from disadvantaged circumstances benefit from participation in quality service-learning in a number of different ways, including the following:
		They tend to have a greater commitment to learning and better school attendance, grades, and academic success than low-income students who did not participate in service (Center for Human Resources, 1999, Scales et al., 2006). They tend to be more likely to believe they are contributing to the community, to be engaged in learning, and other positive outcomes (Blyth, Saito, & Berkas, 1997). They tend to demonstrate more positive civic attitudes and behaviors than youth from their peers who do not volunteer, and they are almost 40% more likely to believe they can make a difference in their community (Spring, Dietz, & Grimm, 2007). Kahne and Sporte (2007) found that service-learning participation has a significant impact on civic participation within largely urban, low-income population, even after controlling for prior commitments. Sustained involvement in service-learning appears to reduce the gap between more and less affluent students in their prosocial orientation (positive attitudes and intention to serve in the coming year) (Scales et al., 2006).
		The Opportunity Gap
		Despite the value of service-learning for disadvantaged youth, they are less likely to have opportunities to serve others:
		Only 43% of youth from disadvantaged circumstances volunteer, compared to 59% for other youth. When they do volunteer, they do so at the same rates as other youth (Spring, Dietz, & Grimm, 2007). Kahne & Middaugh (in preparation) found that students in classes with a higher average SES were more than twice as likely as students in classrooms with average SES to report participating in service activities. Furthermore, students with higher SES than their class average were more than twice as likely to report volunteering than those with average SES in the class. Schools serving youth in disadvantaged circumstances are less likely to provide service-learning opportunities than schools in other types of communities. Only 29% of high-poverty schools offered service-learning in 2004, versus 36% of other schools, and only 26% of students participated in low-income schools, versus 32% in high-income schools (Scales & Roehlkepartain, 2004). However, when these schools do offer service-learning, the quality of the programs appears to be equal to or better than programs in other schools. A similar gap is evident in community-based organizations. Seven percent of youth from disadvantaged circumstances volunteer through a community-based youth program, compared to 12% of other youth (Spring, Dietz, & Grimm, 2007). Another factor in the difference is that they are less likely to be asked to serve than youth from other circumstances (Spring, Dietz, & Grimm, 2007).
		Engaging Disadvantaged Youth in Service-Learning
		Here are some starting points for reflection and action about how to reach and include young people from disadvantaged circumstances: Examine assumptions and stereotypes—A number of factors likely contribute to the gaps in opportunities, including a tendency in some community for young people to engage in informal caring (with friends and/or family), instead of formal programmatic participation. However, it is also likely that a major barrier is that they are more often seen by schools, organizations, and communities as liabilities, not resources (Zoerink, Magafas, & Pawelko, 2007). Furthermore, a “missionary mentality” that imposes its worldview on another culture or group may also operate in seeking to engage youth in disadvantaged circumstances (Simmons and Toole, 2003). Recognizing these challenges, then working to overcome these stereotypes and assumptions, is key to changing attitudes. Strength-based understandings of youth development offer resources and strategies aimed at viewing all young people as resources, regardless of their socioeconomic background, resources, race/ethnicity, or other differences (e.g. Benson, 2006; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002). Diversify leadership—An analysis of equity issues in service-learning revealed that the field is perceived to have well-educated, middle-class, and white leadership. Furthermore, the leadership typically does not reflect the youth population involved (Simmons and Toole, 2003). Finding ways to broaden leadership and mentor a broader range of leaders into service-learning will offer young people more role models to motivate and guide them into a lifetime of service. Use effective service-learning practices—Effectively engaging young people from disadvantaged circumstances in service-learning involves designing opportunities based on core principles and practices of effective service-learning (e.g., National Youth Leadership Council, 1999). In addition, because of their past experiences and the potential for mistrust, it can be helpful to emphasize the following elements:
		Create a group environment in which young people feel safe, well-connected, and like they belong. Invite them to identify the issues and concerns that they want to address. Set clear boundaries and expectations for behavior. Challenge them to use their gifts, talents, and energy to do benefit others. Increase their responsibilities as they have early successes. Invite responsible adults to serve as mentors, role models, and guides.
		With Whom Will You Partner?
		The most effective partnerships are ones that build on prior relationships and are sustained beyond individual projects (Abt Associates & Brandeis University, 2003; Bailis, 2000; Shields & Bailis, 2007). But how do you find potential partners if you are just starting? Though you may sometimes need to connect with an institution through a “cold call,” it is more efficient and effective to use the web of personal relationships you and your colleagues already have to find appropriate opportunities. Consider these approaches.
		Narrow the scope. Get some clarity about why you and your organization want to partner with others, and what you hope to get out of it. Otherwise, the possibilities can become overwhelming. What do you seek to accomplish through the relationships? What are your interests, needs, or priorities? Are you seeking places where young people can serve the community? Are you seeking allies for addressing a specific issue and fulfilling your mission? Are you seeking to broaden engagement in community-building efforts? Answering these kinds of questions will make it easier to locate potential partners. Tap existing relationships. A partnership is more likely to be successful if it builds on current relationships. With whom do you work, go to school, worship, or engage in civic life? These links can play a vital role in broadening the efforts. These people may not be the person with whom you ultimately partner, but they can often introduce you to the people from agencies that could become partners and youth who could become service-learning participants. Connect with bridge builders within those communities, groups, or organizations that are particularly important or strategic in reaching your goals. (They are generally most open to “cold calls.”) Each community, cultural group, religious group, age group, or other sub-population includes individuals who play this informal role. They are natural networkers, comfortable operating in different cultural settings so that they can “translate” for others and establish initial trust. Utilize the networking resources within your community. Check with the local Volunteer Center or United Way, which often see one of their roles to help facilitate collaborative relationships.
		Be intentional about diversity issues—Engaging youth in disadvantaged circumstances generally involves a wide range of socioeconomic, cultural, racial/ethnic, and religious diversity. Among other things, service-learning programs will more effectively engage diverse youth by reflecting on and sharing cultural values, emphasizing each young person’s capacity to serve, helping young people work toward a common goal, helping to enlarge young people’s perspectives, and promoting humane values (Klopp, Liptrott, & Klopp, 2005). Engage trusted institutions and networks—Youth from disadvantaged circumstances likely trust and are engaged in some institutions more than others, based on proximity in their neighborhoods, family culture and/or values, and other factors. The only institutions where disadvantaged youth are more likely than other youth to provide service, for example, are faith-based organizations. Among youth from disadvantaged circumstances, 39% volunteer through a religious congregation, compared to 33% of other youth (Spring, Dietz, & Grimm, 2007). Thus, these institutions may be particularly important allies in ensuring that disadvantaged youth have quality opportunities for service-learning. Embed service-learning into the core curriculum or program, rather than as optional activities. Simply providing more optional activities does not necessarily increase equity by reaching those who are currently not participating. Rather, young people who are already involved are likely to do more, with those who are not engaged remaining on the sidelines (Quiroz, Gonzales, & Frank, 1999). Integrating service-learning into core curriculum is more likely to engage those young people who are least likely to connect otherwise. Increase funding for service-learning for youth in disadvantaged circumstances. High-quality service-learning often requires extra resources, so better-funded programs and districts can afford to provide more and better opportunities. Given the support for service-learning among principals in low-income schools noted above, increased funding to support service-learning opportunities and quality could make a significant difference. Integrate young people together—One of the dangers in highlighting youth from disadvantaged circumstances as a focus for service-learning is that it could inadvertently fuel additional programs that label and further isolate these young people in their communities. Service-learning projects can be opportunities for all young people to participate on equal footing and build relationships across differences, with all contributing according to their strengths.
		References
		Beauvais, C., & Jenson, J. (2003). The well-being of children: Are there “neighbourhood” effects? Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blyth, D. A., Saito, R., & Berkas, T. (1997). A quantitative study of the impact of service-learning programs. In A. S. Waterman (editor), Service-learning: Applications from the research (pp. 39–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Caughy, M, O’Campo, P., & Brodsky, A. E. (1999). Neighborhoods, families, and children: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Community Psychology 27, 615-633. Center for Human Resources (1999). Summary report: National evaluation of Learn and Serve America. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University. Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist 59, 77-92. Hawkins, J., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D., Brewer, D., Catalano, R., Harachi, & Cothern, L. (2000). Predictors of youth violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Kahne, J. E., & Middaugh, E. (in preparation). Democracy for some: The unequal provision of civic learning opportunities in U.S. high schools. Kahne, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2007). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. Paper presented at the Learn and Serve America Grantee Meeting, September 26 – 28, Arlington, Virginia. Klopp, C., Liptrott, J., Klopp, K. (2005). Getting started in service-learning: An elementary through high school handbook. St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2002). Community programs to promote youth development: Committee on community-level programs for youth (J. Eccles & J. A. Gootman, Eds.) [Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Children, Youth and Families]. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (2004). At-risk youth and service-learning: Selected resources. Scotts Valley, CA: Author. Download from http://servicelearning.org/instant_info/bibs/cb_bibs/at-risk/index.php National Youth Leadership Council (1999). Essential elements of service-learning. St. Paul, MN: Author. Quiroz, P. A., Gonzales, N. F., & Frank, K. A. (1999).  Beyond social capital:  Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children.  American Sociological Review, 64: 633-660. Scales, P. C., Foster, K. C., Mannes, M., Horst, M. A., Pinto, K. C., Rutherford, A. (2005). School-business partnerships, developmental assets, and positive outcomes among urban high school students: a mixed-methods study. Urban Education 40 (2), 144-189. Scales, P. C., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2004) Community service and service-learning in U.S. Public Schools, 2004: Findings from a national survey. St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council. Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Neal, M., Kielsmier, J. C, & Benson, P. L. (2006). Reducing academic achievement gaps: The role of community service and service learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 29, 38-60. Simmons, V. C., & Toole, P. (2003). Service-learning diversity/equity project research report. The Generator (summer), 18-21. Available at www.nylc.org/programs_diversity.cfm. Spring, K., Dietz, N., & Grimm, R. Jr. (2007). Leveling the path to participation: Volunteering and civic engagement among youth from disadvantaged circumstances. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. Download from www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/performance_research.asp Dean A. Zoerink, D. A., Magafas, A. H., & Pawelko, K. A. (2007). Empowering youth at risk through community service. Child and Youth Care Forum, 26 (2), 127-138.

The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse is a program of Learn and Serve America and is managed by ETR Associates. Learn and Serve America is administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service, which is part of USA Freedom Corps. The project is funded under Cooperative Agreement No. 05 TAH-CA005. ©2005-2008 National Service-Learning Clearinghouse. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Accessibility Statement.