Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / c h i l d yo u t h

Toward a theory of change in community-based practice with youth:

A case-study exploration
Robert J. Chaskin
The University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, 969 East Sixtieth Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Community organizations are potentially important mechanisms to support the well-being of children,
Received 3 July 2009 youth, and their families in ways that are responsive and appropriate to their particular circumstances and
Accepted 7 July 2009 with reference to the context of the neighborhoods in which they live. They do this, in part, by engaging with
Available online 16 July 2009
those with whom they seek to work in multiple ways: formally and informally, through a broad range of
intervention strategies, activities, and programs, and by establishing ongoing, day-to-day interactions that
Keywords:
Youth development
are both flexible and grounded in an understanding of local context, individual needs, and community
Community circumstances. However, given the complexity and ambiguity of the inputs and the breadth of their intended
Theory of change outcomes, understanding the impact that such organizations may have is problematic. This paper provides a
Evaluation brief case-study description in an effort to begin to tease out the inputs, outputs, and expected outcomes in
Community-based organizations one particular example of community-based practice. In particular, it seeks to identify and begin to
Youth participation investigate the range and nature of intermediate outcomes that may be posited to lead to the broader
outcomes at the individual, family, and community level that such organizations often seek to effect.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction communities have assets to bring to bear on these problems, and that
they can be mobilized to do so (Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal,
The local community has long been a target of intervention for 2001; Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Warren,
addressing the needs of children and families, particularly those living 2001).
under disadvantaged circumstances (e.g., Halpern, 1995; Miller, 1981). In light of these convictions, social workers, community develop-
Currently, community is again ascendant as an organizing principle ment professionals, organizers, and advocates of various stripes have
for social intervention in a number of arenas—from housing to health been engaged in a broad range of approaches and activities in local
to child protection to economic development—including a broad communities—from assessment and planning to development and
range of practices and initiatives focused explicitly on the well-being service provision to organizing and social action—that come under the
of children and families. This current focus on communities—in the rubric of “community practice” or “community intervention” (Roth-
United States taking place in the context of significant decentralization man, 1995; Weill & Gamble, 1995). A subset of these activities,
and privatization (e.g., Marwell, 2004)—has come about for several focusing on direct practice within community contexts, has been
reasons. First is the recognition that the needs and circumstances of defined as community-based practice, which “integrate[s] … direct
(especially poor) children and families are often interrelated, and that services with skills traditionally associated with community organiza-
categorical approaches to addressing them are often insufficient tion and community development” (Johnson, 2001: 58).
(Gardner, 1989; Levitan, Mangum, & Pines, 1989; Schorr, 1988; Wilson, Community organizations, from youth organizations to family
1987). Second is a belief among many funders of social programs that resource centers to multi-service agencies, provide an important
local communities are where these needs and circumstances come organizational setting in which such community-based practice
together, and where they can be best addressed (Chaskin, 1998). Third occurs, and they represent potentially important mechanisms to
is the increasing availability of research supporting the notion that support the well-being of children, youth, and their families in ways
indeed, for children and youth in particular, community context that are responsive and appropriate to their particular circumstances
matters (Aber, Gephart, Brooks-Gunn, & Connell, 1997; Blythe & and with reference to the context of the neighborhoods in which they
Leffert, 1995; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Garbarino, 1992; Sampson, live. They do this, in part, by engaging with those with whom they
Morenoff and Gannon-Rowly, 2002). Fourth is the notion that local seek to work in multiple ways: formally and informally, through a
broad range of intervention strategies, activities, and programs, and by
establishing ongoing, day-to-day interactions that are both flexible
E-mail address: [email protected]. and grounded in an understanding of local context, individual needs,

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.07.012
1128 R.J. Chaskin / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134

and community circumstances. Such organizations often espouse a potential to become successful and actively contributing members of
developmental rather than remedial worldview and approach to society.” It does this through a broad range of activities and programs
practice, and emphasize holism, responsiveness, and collaboration in and through collaboration with a set of community-based and city-
their work (Lightburn & Kemp, 1994; Warren-Adamson, 2001). In wide organizations and projects. Although it began with a social-
addition, the orientations, capacities, and resources of these organiza- service and youth-development focus grounded in the provision of
tions differ, as do the nature and quality of the activities they offer, the various programs, the organization has increasingly developed a more
extent to which they are perceived as welcoming and accessible, the activist agenda and focuses a large portion of its work on community
degree to which they are responsive to youth and community needs, organizing and advocacy with the intent to reform policies that have
and the extent to which they work with other organizations to deliver an impact on young people.
services (Halpern, 1999; McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994; Quinn, At the time of field work, the organization had 15 full-time and
1999). These characteristics of organizations are integral to the about 8 part-time staff members, as well as a cadre of volunteers who
provision, use, and impact of the programs and activities they provide help support the organization's programming in a range of ways. It
(Gootman, 2000; McLaughlin et al., 1994). maintains a set of ongoing organizational partnerships and inter-
Because of this, it is often difficult to effectively describe the par- organizational relations with other community organizations, and has
ticular nature of the interventions that such organizations support— helped to incubate and support several such organizations, including a
their component parts, relevant processes, and the means-ends number of social-justice organizations focused on immigrant rights
assumptions or “theories of change” (Weiss, 1995) that guide them. and human rights more broadly.
Further, the outcomes they seek to effect are often framed quite
broadly and at multiple levels, focusing on such targets as child well- 2.1. Neighborhood characteristics
being, youth development, family functioning, and “community
capacity.” Given the complexity and ambiguity of the inputs and the The neighborhood in which the organization works is fairly large,
breadth of the intended outcomes, understanding the impact that and comprises a cluster of “community areas” located on the western
such organizations may have can be difficult indeed. This is more than edge of Chicago's mid-south region. The area is composed of a total of
a question of method. Such organizations often operate informed 49 census tracts within five community areas1 and is home to a
by operating theories and causal assumptions that remain largely population of nearly 200,000 people in all. It is an ethnically diverse
implicit. In order to frame research that can provide evidence of the population that includes high proportions of African Americans,
outcomes to which such organizations may contribute, it is imperative Latinos, whites, and immigrant groups (including a relatively large
to understand the operating theories of change that drive their number of Arab Americans), though their concentrations tend to be
practice. clustered in different community areas within the neighborhood.
This paper provides a brief case-study analysis of one particular There is also diversity with regard to a number of other compositional
example of community-based practice in an effort to begin to tease factors, including income, education, employment, and residential
out its inputs, outputs, and expected outcomes. It begins with some stability, though overall the area is relatively poor, with only the two
background information on the organization and the community in smallest community areas having poverty rates below 10% and
which it works, and then provides a very brief overview of the kinds of housing residents earning above the median household income for
programs and activities supported by the organization. It then turns to the city as a whole, which was $38,625 in 2000 (see Table 1).
a preliminary analysis of the operating principles and outcome
expectations that lie behind the organization's activities. Finally, it 2.2. Community dynamics and social problems
frames a discussion of the issues surrounding linking inputs,
processes, and outcomes toward a theory of change that might be A number of the circumstances presented by the community
useful in guiding evaluation of the work and effects of organizations context have clear relevance for the youth and families with whom the
such as the one examined here. organization works, and they inform how the organization engages
The paper provides an exploratory, inductive analysis based on a with this population. Many of these circumstances are connected with
set of in-depth interviews with the key staff (management and the poverty. In the words of one staff member:
lead staff for each programmatic area in which the organization
works) of one such organization in Chicago (the Southwest Youth You have families that are working two or three jobs to be able to
Collaborative), observations of program activities and the organiza- provide for their families, and you know, the difficulty then
tional environment in which they are provided, and a review of becomes then who is helping this young person develop at home?
center-produced documentation. Interviews were guided by a semi-
structured protocol which solicited open-ended responses to a set of The basic issue of poverty is related to and further complicated by a
broad questions concerning the programs and activities provided by number of other factors. One such factor is the educational barriers
the organization, perceptions of the neighborhood and the families faced by young people in the neighborhood, exemplified by over-
and young people with whom the organization works, the goals and crowded, under-resourced public schools, and by the limitations of
objectives of the organization and of its various program offerings, the families to help support the education of their children due to
ways in which the organization is structured and functions, the language barriers or their own literacy problems. Another factor is the
organization's relationships with the community, its members, and significant and increasing diversity of the neighborhood and the
other community organizations, and the perceived relationship
among these factors and the intended outcomes of the organization's
work. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed, and coded 1
Community Areas were defined in the 1930s by University of Chicago sociologist
for thematic analysis.
Ernest Burgess based on social surveys of city residents. The community identity
provided by the mapping of community areas over time became widely adopted, and
2. Organizational background and community context subsequent study suggested that they retained symbolic relevance, though they were
recognized as one among several ways of identifying areas of the city among other
The Southwest Youth Collaborative (SWYC) was founded in 1992 kinds of neighborhood names and definitions (Hunter, 1974; Venkatesh 2001). Today,
census data are routinely aggregated to provide profiles of community areas in the
as part of a philanthropic initiative launched by a local philanthropy in Chicago Area Fact Book (Chicago Fact Book Consortium 2004), and the 77 defined
seven Chicago neighborhoods and one suburban community. The community areas are often used as proxies for Chicago communities by scholars,
mission of the organization is to work with youth “to unleash their government, and community organizations.
 R.J. Chaskin / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134 1129

Table 1 trips, and internships, as well as through multifaceted programs that

Southwest side by community area selected characteristics. engage youth in activities and connect them to other community
West Gage Chicago West W. Englewood organizations and actions.3
Elsdon Park Lawn Lawn Community involvement activities engage young people in organiz-
Population 15,921 39,193 61,412 29,235 45,282 ing for social change and can focus on a range of different social
% White 66.56 47.45 23.64 62.85 0.61 problems. The particular problems around which the young people
% Black 0.59 7.30 52.99 2.77 98.12 are mobilized are selected by the young people themselves who,
% Hispanic 49.46 79.30 35.06 51.92 1.01
with older youth and staff serving in facilitating roles, take on the
% Asian 0.87 0.52 0.69 0.98 0.07
Med. hshld. income $ 45,310 $ 36,463 $ 35,983 $ 47,017 $ 26,693 range of responsibilities necessary to conduct a successful mobiliza-
% Poverty 6.9 19.0 19.8 7.4 32.1 tion campaign. This includes analyzing the problem, conducting pow-
% Single-female 17.7 19.2 38.3 18.4 54.1 er analyses, canvassing, organizing events, participating in hearings
headed family hshlds and public actions, and working with the media. For example, one
Education (age 25+)
% HS graduate + 61.8 46.0 65.3 65.5 62.8
campaign sought to increase the City's budget allocations for prog-
% some college + 28.7 20.7 35.4 34.6 31.3 rams supporting youth development and employment in Chicago;
% bachelors degree + 9.1 5.8 9.4 11.4 4.8 another targeted school discipline policies; a third focused on pre-
Employment venting the loss of summer jobs for youth in the city; and a fourth on
Mgmt/professional 17.4 11.8 16.4 19.9 17.4
broader issues of racial justice (especially connected with police bru-
Svc/sales/office 43.9 38.6 49.4 43.3 58.3
Residential stability 58.2 55.5 55.6 55.8 67.6 tality and racial profiling) and immigrant rights.
(same house in 1995) In addition to these formal activities and programs, the organiza-
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 1:
tion provides a range of informal supports to young people and their
June 2001. families. In part, this includes attempts to identify and help bolster
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3: August existing informal support networks that are available to the youth and
2002. families with which the organization works. A staff member describes
Chicago Community Area aggregations prepared by: Chicago Area Geographic Information
one example of this:
Study (CAGIS) under contract to the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission.

If we know that one mother lives a block or two from another

concomitant effects of discrimination, isolation, and challenges to
mother, we try to help parents to communicate among them-
social cohesion that such diversity may bring. A third factor is the level
selves. So that one of the parents can help the other and make sure
of street violence and gang activity, and the complexity of multiple
that her kids get to school on time.
gang boundaries that constrain young people's access to opportu-
nities. Related to this, a fourth factor is the effects of a general policy
response to young people that fosters a trend toward what informants But in many ways the informal support roles that SWYC take on
describe as the “criminalization” of youth from these neighborhoods. entail staff stepping in to provide informal support—money, advice,
Finally, the prevalence of problems such as substance abuse and mediation—directly. In the words of one staff member:
domestic violence were cited as additional factors that are important
to understand in order to respond to the needs of young people and A lot of the families are very poor and disconnected, whose mother
their families in the community. was in prison, whose father was this, you know, they don't have a place
The young people and families with whom SWYC works are largely to turn so they turn to us. . . . Like if somebody, if a mother couldn't buy
self-selected, having learned about the organization's programs by her kid shoes for graduation, you know, before I used to give it to the
word of mouth in their schools and from those who are already kid but now I ask the parent so they can buy it with dignity. Like when
involved. Participants tend to come from the middle to poorer part of they can't make their rent. We've all been there, and sometimes we
the continuum of disadvantage–disadvantaged, but not necessarily need somebody. So we try and figure out a way to do this.
the most disadvantaged families in the community.
Similarly, staff will sometimes play informal mediating roles between
3. Programs and activities families and institutions like the school, especially when families are
relatively new to the city and where language and cultural barriers may
The organization takes a two-track approach in addressing the make interaction with the schools difficult, or where particular young
needs and supporting the development of youth and the functioning people are having trouble staying organized and getting their homework
of families in the community. One track focuses on youth develop- done. For example, as one staff member describes:
ment; the other on community involvement and organizing. In
I'll put a paper in [the teacher's] mailbox so that they can write
addition, staff also attempt to respond to the informal support needs
down directly the homework for certain kids that we're having a
of young people and their families as they arise.
difficult time with. That way, if I have to, I'll take their homework
Youth development programs include a range of different projects,
to them the following day.
including tutoring and homework help, after-school recreational
programs, summer programs, cultural awareness programs, and arts In these cases, staff responds to specific, emerging needs of the
programs.2 They also include programs, particularly focused on older children and families involved in their formal programs to provide
youth (roughly ages 14–22), the goals of which are to enhance young supplementary social support. The organization also provides a
people's capacities to plan, problem-solve, and work together, and to
provide them with both specific life-skills and expose them to
information about opportunities that can prepare them to move into 3
One example of this is an arts program that works with young people through
the workforce or move onto further education. They do this through a their creative engagement in the arts—from dance to mural art to gardening—and uses
art as a way to connect young people to their community and to engagement in
broad range of workshops, courses, guest speakers, tours and field
community-change activities. The program includes an emphasis on the history and
practice of urban arts and often engages youth in community service, such as graffiti
2
Staff also provides family-support services to those connected with the organiza- remediation (e.g., replacing gang-related “tagging” with public murals). The program
tion (particularly for parents of younger children) such as parent training activities, grew up out of the activist activities of youth working with the organization, and
parent–teacher conference support, and connections to counseling resources and other represents an explicit programmatic link between the youth development and
social service supports. community involvement work of the organization.
1130 R.J. Chaskin / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134

general context for such support—for both individuals and groups—by and write. So that affects our programming because we need to
virtue of the space it provides for community members to drop in, for have that in place.
community groups to meet, and for other community organizations to
conduct their business and run programs. SWYC's approach to participation is also holistic, in that young
people are provided with opportunities to participate in any number
4. Operating principles and assumptions of programs, over time or all at once. More centrally, the idea of holism
has to do with the need for staff to understand the broader context
Behind the provision of these programs, activities, and interactions are and circumstances of the young people they work with. This means
some fundamental (often implicitly held) assumptions about young understanding the needs of young people and the opportunities and
people, youth development, and the needs of disadvantaged children and constraints placed on them, for example, by their individual
families and how best to support them. To understand the relationship characteristics (e.g., learning disabilities, history of abuse), by their
between organizational behavior and program provision, on the one hand, family situations (e.g., multiple needs, immigrant status, poverty), and
and expected short- and long-term outcomes, on the other, it is useful to by the dynamics of the community (e.g., violence, gangs, racism).
attempt to tease out the operating principles and relevant assumptions Finally and perhaps most centrally, the organization's approach to
that drive the work of the organization. participation is founded on the belief in young people as agents of
Toward this end, two fundamental aspects of SWYC's work are change. In the words of one staff member:
worth highlighting: (1) a focus on youth engagement and participa-
tion as fundamental to youth development and social change and We see young people as critical to changing the way our
(2) an organizational culture that seeks to support and reflect the community—the current state of our community. So I think that's
valuation of youth as autonomous, responsible social actors. what differentiates us from a lot of other organizations and even
community-based organizations. There are several community-
4.1. Youth development and youth engagement based organizations in the city that will say our problem is gangs
and we need more police. And for us, the solution is not more
SWYC operates under a fundamental assumption about how to work police but really getting at the root causes of why young people
with young people: that they are to be respected as individuals, valued for join gangs. And we really seek and invite young people to join us
their opinions, and relied on to shape and play a central role in the at the table to find a solution to say, ‘You are part of this
activities and programs that involve them. Central to this, in the words of community. You are not the enemy here.’
one staff member, is “that youth have a voice. That they are the leaders. We
shouldn't really be guiding them. We're there to assist.” This orientation is This stance is an explicit challenge to what several staff discussed
consistent with the central tenets promoted by advocates of “positive as the problem of the “criminalization of youth”—the tendency for
youth development” and reflects findings of recent research regarding society, through such instruments as its laws, media portrayals, and
some of the characteristics of effective youth programs (Eccles & Gootman, school policies to characterize young people as problems to be
2002; McLaughlin et al., 1994; Pittman, 1991), as well as the central controlled rather than citizens in the making. It is also where SWYC's
arguments of a growing body of work focused on youth activism and civic dual focus on youth development (building the skills and capacities of
engagement (e.g., Checkoway & Gutiérrez, 2006; Yates & Youniss, 1999). individual young people) and community development (building
To foster this kind of leadership and responsiveness, the organization community capacity to address the needs and redress the inequalities
conducts periodic surveys of youth, it asks young people at monthly faced by members of the community in which the organization
meetings associated with different programs what they want and where works) come together. Through young people's engagement as change
they want to see the program heading, and it involves them in decision- agents in their community, the organization seeks, in the words of one
making about both program content (such as the focus of instruction or staff member, “to develop a base of grassroots leaders that can actively
the target of a social-action campaign) and organizational direction either organize or actively participate in some way to shape or form or
(through the representation of young people on the organization's board change the way things are happening in the community.”
of directors). This approach is not always simple; there are tensions
associated with it, such as between young people's interests and needs, or 4.2. Organizational culture and process
between responsibility and exploitation. As one staff member put it:
The participation and engagement of young people as autonomous,
You want to deal with these kids with respect and you want to treat responsible social actors takes place within, and is fostered by, an
them [with respect] because they have been mistreated …. [So] they organizational culture that seeks to embody these values and orienta-
must be represented at the table and that works in the long run. It will tions. This includes creating an organizational environment that
work, they will come around. It's very hard and kids also see through, provides safe space, a context of trust, and a sense of ownership. In
they take advantage of it too because they can manipulate. part, this is a question of consciously seeking to provide a contrast to the
other institutional contexts in which young people find themselves. As
The emphasis on youth participation and engagement incorpo- one staff member put it:
rates at least three principles of action: that participation be
developmental, that it be holistic, and that it recognize young people Some of the kids we work with, they're so afraid of authority and
as agents of change in their own right. they're afraid of institutions. Either they've had some type of
The developmental aspect of youth participation concerns both relationship with [Child Protective Services] or something . . . so
engaging young people at the level they are ready to engage and there's this big wall and so it takes time to penetrate that wall.
providing escalating opportunities for involvement by moving young
people through different programs and, in some cases, later hiring The organization thus seeks to create a more informal, non-
them as staff. As one staff member put it: hierarchical, improvisational space for young people to come and work
together, hang out, and develop positive relationships—though their
We're trying to gear them to that as far as developing leadership collective engagement in specific work projects—with both adults and
skills and some of the life skills they need to be involved in other other youth. This effort is reflected in both the physical space and in the
programs at the [organization]. There they get to go out on organization's structure and management processes. The building, for
conferences. For organizing, you need to know how to speak well example, in which the organization is housed is a reclaimed, single-story
 R.J. Chaskin / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134 1131

building on a main thoroughfare in the community, easily accessible and So that's been a big plus that we have someone to go to instead of
easily recognizable, as its entire exterior surface (and many of the interior calling the police.
walls and doors) is covered with colorful graffiti-art murals. As one staff
member commented:
5. Goals and expectations
That's their space and they feel comfortable enough to tag. I know
that some adults in the building don't like it but you need to The kinds of outcome goals that SWYC's programs, activities, and
realize that it's not gangs, it's art. approach to working with young people are meant to foster are varied,
often broadly stated, and operate at several different levels.
The organizational structure reflects a similarly informal approach: At the individual level (i.e., changes in the outcomes of particular
management and oversight is relatively non-hierarchical, administration youth), outcome goals range from broad affective changes in young
is organized through the work of “leadership teams,” and there people's self-concept, to the attainment of particular skills, to the
is significant informal communication among staff working on different avoidance of risky behavior, to expectations for long-term benefits
programs and activities. On the negative side, this mode of operation concerning educational attainment and citizenship. One staff member,
sometimes makes it difficult for quick decisions to be made and for example, talked about the desire to change young people's future-
contributes to what one staff member described (not without pleasure) orientation and aspirations:
as a “chaotic” environment. On the positive side, however, this approach
contributes to what most seem to view as an environment that is I would love for these kids to see that they can go on to achieve things
generative, responsive, and alive. through education. Because a lot of these kids, they don't think that
Beyond the physical and organizational structure, the values em- there's anything past tomorrow. So they don't see longer-term, [that]
bodied in the organization's approach get played out through interac- they need to get good grades so they can go to a decent high school
tions between staff and young people in particular situations and around and then go to college. They don't make those connections.
particular issues. This is not without its dilemmas, however. Indeed, staff
members of different backgrounds bring with them different orienta- Others talked about improving young people's self-confidence, their
tions with regard to appropriate behavior and staff–youth interaction, ability to make choices, and the choices they make. Still others focused on
and different approaches to the youth-development agenda. One staff behavior—not doing drugs, not joining a gang, getting good grades—and
member describes this difference as being more “theory driven” among on learning both broad critical thinking skills and specific “hard skills.”
those staff who come from more educated, affluent backgrounds, and For example, on the organizing side, hard skills include the ability to
more about “tough love” among those who come from backgrounds facilitate meetings, address the media, recruit other youth; for other
similar to the young people with whom they work. Another defines the programs, such skills include computer literacy, reading and math skills,
difference between staff with a “traditional” social-service background mastery of artistic techniques (see Table 2).
and those with a more “community” background. Regardless of the There are also outcome expectations for families with whom the
source, the dilemmas are quite real, and play out in particular with organization works, especially through its work with younger children.
regard to issues of discipline. As one staff member put it: “like when a These largely concern developing leadership skills among parents and
young person does something wrong, what do we do? So, do we kick increasing their capacity to address their individual problems and to
them out of the building? Do we call the parent first? Do we give them a work collectively toward community change (see Table 3).
warning?” Or, in the words of another: Goals at both individual and family levels are also connected with
outcome goals for change at the community and policy levels (see
One of the staff said I should have a deadbolt on my door because Table 4). In the words of one staff member:
they keep breaking in but that's a value in terms of how do you want
to relate to the youth and to the community and how do you want to Our efforts have been to, number one, serve this community in
build that community …. Will you trust people and they trust you? terms of the services that we provide and, number two, to
organize this community so that as we move forward on various
Finally, the ways in which the organization maintains relations with policy issues, that they will understand the impact it's having on
other organizations is another aspect of the way the organization works them so that they'll become stronger advocates.
that reflects, to an extent, its orientation toward young people as agents
of change and the organization's role in fostering social change. In part, Advocacy focuses on issues that confront the community in which
these relations are highly pragmatic and instrumental. For example, SWYC works. Thus, it targets issues like education reform, racial profiling,
SWYC works with social workers at different neighborhood schools, who school policies around discipline, school counseling support, and the like.
in turn refer youth to its programs. Similarly, it leverages the community Building on the “grassroots leaders” the organization develops, it seeks to
service-hours requirement that all students have in their schools as a promote concrete institutional and community change:
tool for outreach, going to the schools to tell young people about their
programs and to recruit them to apply their service hours to work as So our goal is to change different institutions that are in our
organizers on particular social-change campaigns. In part, however, the community. The main one in our community has been the public
inter-organizational relationships are more organic, operating more school system but now it's broadened to have the Chicago Police
through the informal relations that staff has developed with youth in Department, Chicago Public Schools, there are people looking at
their programs and through their inter-organizational collaborations. the Chicago Park District, and I think it's, you know, it's been
One example is the partnership with an organization focused on putting changing the way these institutions deal with young people. It's
an end to gang violence. As one staff member explained: changing the balance of power.

We've had some of the high school volunteers even though

they've completed their [community-service] hours continue to 6. Linking input, process, and expected outcome: Toward a theory
come and volunteer. Sometimes they've felt that they can let of change
whether me or another staff know that something is going to
happen within the neighborhood so that we can call . . . before Having explored the programs, principles, goals, and outcome
something happens so that they can intervene and try to avoid it. expectations that characterize SWYC's work within the context of the
1132 R.J. Chaskin / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134

Table 2
Inputs and outcome expectations level 1 — individual (youth).

Goals Inputs Outcomes

Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Develop leadership skills Education programs Reading/writing skills (remedial) Higher SAT/Iowa test scores School completion
Create opportunities College-oriented programs (trips to Making connections between school Higher self-esteem Higher educational
colleges, scholarships, financial achievement and future success Transition to other programs attainment (college)
aid and application assistance) Alternatives to ‘the street’ (Gen Y; SOUL) Youth to become active
Heighten aspirations, Civic education activities ‘Hard’ skills and knowledge Personal efficacy, social skills, and productive citizens
future orientation (discussion, field trips, meetings development leadership ‘Empowerment’ and
w/other groups) – Technology – Self control political will
Recreation programs – Employment prep Reduction in negative
– Self discipline
Youth development programs behaviors
– Health and life choices – Ability to set goals
(various substantive foci) – Teenage pregnancy
Sense of ownership, belonging – Ability to engage in
Provision of information – Crime
– Safe sex teamwork
– Gang involvement
– Job opportunities – Ability to transfer skills to other settings
Provision of ‘safe space’
Youth participation in decision-
making, program direction

Table 3
Inputs and outcome expectations level 2 — family.

Outcomes
Goals Inputs Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Develop leadership skills Team building exercises, meetings, Positive interaction, comfort, Mutual assistance among parents
connect individual parents to one trust among parents Parent involvement in
another as needed Better parenting skills community (e.g., LSC)
Parent training (health, parent– (communication, involvement Improved family dynamics Greater community capacity
child relations, discipline) in school) and support Equity, political power
Parent training (leadership Problem-solving around specific
development, labor and issues (e.g., school attendance, drug use)
immigrant rights)
Mediation between parents
and children
Mediation and advocacy between
child or parent and school
Instrumental assistance (money,
connections to resources)

community in which it works, it becomes possible to begin to link the community more broadly, including the policies that affect and the
inputs, processes, and outcome expectations toward an operating institutions that work with young people (see Fig. 1).
theory of change, though some presumed links are clearer than others. Certain presumed trajectories, beginning with specific inputs
Fundamentally, SWYC seeks to create opportunities for young people. toward specific outcomes, are clearer than others. For example,
Their engagement in these opportunities—formal programs, civic engaging young people in particular tasks associated with organizing
engagement, organizational governance—is seen to promote the campaigns helps them develop particular hard skills (e.g., how to
possibility that they will have different kinds of life patterns, because recruit, how to run a meeting, how to work with the media), which
it can foster changes at different levels: in the individual young people leads to interim process goals (e.g., a mobilized constituency,
who participate, in the families they rely on and help support, and in negotiation with target institutions), which in turn leads to some

Table 4
Inputs and outcome expectations level 3 — community.

Goals Inputs Outcomes

Short-term Mid-term Long-term
Accepting differences, Youth studying social movements Organizing skills Political education and Youth to become active and
supporting diversity of different ethnic groups – Organization analysis skills productive citizens and
(Black Panthers, Zapatistas) – Mobilization Supportive relationships leaders in their community
Social justice, community Youth organizing projects – Communication among youth Educational outcomes
change, equity – Criminalization of youth – Media Supportive relationships – Higher graduation rates
Developing grass-roots leaders – Reproductive rights Civic engagement of w/families and between – Access to higher education
and health young people youth and families Less ‘tracking’ into criminal
Change ‘balance of power’ – Police brutality Youth development Education reform justice system
– Immigrant rights outcomes – Zero tolerance policies Racial equity
Community participation in – Self-confidence – More counselors in Immigrant rights
SWYC governance Develop cohorts of high schools Community self-sufficiency,
volunteers and activists Law enforcement reform community ‘capacity’ and
– Racial profiling community influence
– Brutality
– Restorative justice
 R.J. Chaskin / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134 1133

Fig. 1. A preliminary operating theory-of-change model.

kind of proximate social change (e.g., revision of school discipline culture and operation, a set of driving values about young people, the
policies) and to an enduring capacity of those youth involved to nature of relationships developed, and the nature and quality of young
foster change in the future (i.e., by transferring the skills learned to people's engagement in the work of the organization—that mediate
other settings and issues). This trajectory in effect is seen to lead to between input and outcome in this case. Given the broad diffusion of
a cadre of effective, engaged citizens, thus strengthening the com- community organizations as nodes of community practice and the
munities in which they live and supporting a healthy democratic broad take-up of the basic conceptual assumptions and principles of
system. The organization thus sees itself, in a sense, as a version of practice that guide their work in the U.S. and cross-nationally, there
Tocqueville's “schools for democracy” (Tocqueville, 1988: 63); by en- may be much to learn from critical, systematic comparisons of such
gaging young people in associational action they learn to become practice and its likely effects. Such comparisons may help both to
effective citizens. clarify—describe, compare, and distill like and divergent assumptions
It is possible to posit similar trajectories for other aspects of the and practice in different contexts—the complexity and ambiguity of
organization's work, but playing these out to ultimate desired ends these kinds of interventions and to establish appropriate expectations
requires caution given the small-scale nature of the intervention, for interim effects and the broader, longer-term outcomes sought by
especially relative to some of the broadest goals. In addition, crafting them.
simple causal links between inputs and outcomes (proximate and
distal, at different levels) is complicated by the nuances and References
uncertainty of process. There is an essential, qualitative aspect to the
inputs the organization provides. Much of what SWYC does, for
Aber, J. L., Gephart, M. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Connell, J. P. (1997). Development in
example, relies on “softer” inputs than the particular programs or context: Implications for studying neighborhood effects. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J.
activities it sponsors: creating space (literally and figuratively: safe Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty: Contexts and consequences for
space to convene and hang out, space that is “theirs,” space, in the children New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Blythe, D. A., & Leffert, N. (1995). Communities as contexts for adolescent development.
words of one staff member, “to be youth, to ask questions”); creating Journal of Adolescent Research, 10(1), 64−87.
time and opportunities for an organic development of interest that Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
leads to knowledge and skills; and creating relationships—between and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chaskin, R. J. (1998). Neighborhood as a unit of planning and action: A heuristic
staff and young people, between young people and other adults, and approach. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(1), 11−30.
among young people, parents, and community members. As one staff Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Building community capacity.
member describes it: Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Checkoway, B. N., & Gutiérrez, L. M. (2006). Youth Participation and Community Change.
New York: The Hayworth Press.
Young people that come to the program have to more than say Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development.
‘yeah, this is a cool place to hang out.’ I think it's important for Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
them to say, ‘I'm able to approach this person, I'm able to tell Garbarino, J. (1992). Children and families in the social environment. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
them: this is happening at home. This is, you know, a problem that Gardner, S. (1989 Fall). Failure by fragmentation. California Tomorrow, 18−25.
I have and I need your help.’ And I think at the same time we need Gittel, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a
to at one point or another say, ‘Okay, who wrote on all of the development strategy. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gootman, J. (2000). After-school programs to promote child and adolescent development:
chairs?’ You know, let's talk about that. Who's holding them Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
accountable? Because I think that we will do them an injustice if Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood initiatives to
we don't do both. address poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
Halpern, R. (1999). After school programs for low-income children: Promise and
challenges. The Future of Children, 9(2), 81−95.
To understand outcomes—the impacts that the work of organiza- Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic communities: The persistence and change of Chicago's local
tions like this one have on the youth and families with which they communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, A. K. (2001). The revitalization of community practice: Characteristics, competencies,
work—it is therefore necessary to attend to the qualitative aspects of and curricula for community-based services. In J. E. Tropman, J. L. Erlich, & J. Rothman
the inputs, and to the mediating factors (e.g., community context, (Eds.), Tactics and techniques of community intervention (pp. 56−74)., Fourth Edition
organizational structure and dynamics, broader dynamics of change) Itasca: IL: Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A
that condition the interaction among input, process, and outcome. path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Evanston, IL: Center for
Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Neighborhood Innovations Network, North-
7. Conclusion western University.
Levitan, S. A., Mangum, G. L., & Pines, M. W. (1989). A proper inheritance: Investing in the
self-sufficiency of poor families. Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Policy Studies,
This preliminary analysis has begun to map the posited relation- George Washington University.
ship between certain inputs and short-, medium-, and long-term Lightburn, A., & Kemp, S. P. (1994). Family support programs: Opportunities for
outcome expectations for one particular organization. It has also community-based practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human
Services, 75, 16−26.
begun to tease out some of the dimensions of practice—a particular Marwell, N. P. (2004). Privatizing the welfare state: Nonprofit community-based
approach to youth participation, characteristics of organizational organizations as political actors. American Sociological Review, 69(April), 265−291.
1134 R.J. Chaskin / Children and Youth Services Review 31 (2009) 1127–1134

McLaughlin, M., Irby, M., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban sanctuaries: Neighborhood Venkatesh, S. (2001). Chicago's pragmatic planners: American sociology and the myth
organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. of community. Social Science History, 25(2), 275−316.
Miller, Z. (1981). The role and concept of neighborhood in American cities. In R. Fisher & Warren, M. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American
P. Romanofsky (Eds.), Community organization for urban social change: A historical democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
perspective Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Warren-Adamson, C. (2001). Family centers and their international role in social action:
Pittman, K. J. (1991). Promoting youth development: Strengthening the role of youth- Social work as informal education. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
serving and community organizations. Report prepared for The U.S. Department of Weill, M. O., & Gamble, D. N. (1995). Community practice models. In R. L. Edwards & J. G.
Agriculture Extension Services Washington, DC: Center for Youth Development and Hopps (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (pp. 577−594)., 19th Edition Washington,
Policy Research. D.C.: NASW Press.
Quinn, J. (1999). Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation
early teens. The Future of Children, 9(2), 96−116. for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, A. C.
Rothman, J. (1995). Approaches to community intervention. In J. Rothman, J. L. Erlich & J. E. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community
Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of community intervention Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers. initiatives, Volume 1: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65−92). Washington, DC:
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing neighborhood The Aspen Institute.
effects: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28, 443−478. Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1999). Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on
Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within our reach. New York: Anchor Books. community service and activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tocqueville, A. de (1988). Democracy in America, (Perennial Library Edition) New York:
Harper & Row.