Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan

Cultivating knowledge of resiliency and reintegration among military youth

through a national youth leadership program
Kayla L. Weston a, *, Barry A. Garst b, Edmond P. Bowers b, William H. Quinn b
a
Institute for Family and Neighborhood Life, Clemson University, 277 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA
b
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, Clemson University, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Youth in military families are frequently challenged by the adjustment demands associated with the deployment
Youth development and reintegration of a parent. A positive youth development approach was undertaken by the Boys and Girls
Resilience Clubs of America to develop and implement a Military Teen Ambassadors (MTA) training for youth in military
Military youth
families that would facilitate knowledge of resiliency and reintegration and foster leadership skills to build assets
Program evaluation
Leadership
for themselves as well as their peers within their local communities. To determine if MTA was functioning as
intended and to refine future programming, this preliminary formative study assessed perceived participant
learning outcomes associated with MTA on variables pertaining to knowledge acquisition, perceived skill
acquisition, and community needs awareness. Data were collected prior to the training, immediately following
the training, and 6 months after the training. Repeated measures analysis indicated significant mean increases
over time in knowledge and awareness of resiliency and reintegration; perceived leadership skills; and com­
munity awareness. Qualitative findings provided triangulation in the aforementioned areas. These findings
strengthen the body of knowledge on resiliency by demonstrating that the 7 Cs model may be an effective
strategy to incorporate into leadership development programs seeking to build knowledge of resiliency among
military youth. Study limitations, lessons learned, and recommendations for further research are delineated.

1. Introduction
Nearly one million youth (ages 20 and under, or 21–22 if enrolled as
full-time students) have parents serving on active duty across all four
branches of the U.S. military (Department of Defense, 2018). Since 9/11,
about one million service member parents have deployed to war zones in
Iraq and Afghanistan, with nearly half serving two or more tours
(Department of Defense, 2010). Additionally, 3,700 youth have survived
a parent’s war-related death and 41,000 have suffered a parent’s
war-related injury or illness (Department of Defense, 2010). Military
youth often encounter powerful emotions associated with a parent’s
deployment, such as anger and sadness, that are often exacerbated by
the fear associated with knowing a parent is deployed in a war zone and
is vulnerable to the threats of terrorism (Huebner & Mancini, 2005;
Huebner et al., 2007). Additionally, they face a host of adult re­
sponsibilities, such as caring for siblings (Huebner & Mancini, 2005) and
providing emotional support to the resident parent (Hooper et al.,
2008).
Military youth are immersed in a dynamic lifestyle in which a service
member parent is deployed overseas for months at a time and/or the
family undergoes frequent relocations to new duty stations (MacDermid
Wadsworth et al., 2017; Milburn & Lightfoot 2013). With the consid­
erable stressors deployment places on the health and well-being of youth
and families (Chandra et al., 2010; Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011),
programs designed to address these stressors have emerged. For
example, for over two decades, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America
(BGCA) has partnered with the U.S. Armed Forces to provide programs
and services for military youth and their families both in the U.S. and
internationally (Boys and Girls Clubs of America, 2013). In recognition
of the hardships associated with the military-family lifestyle (Milburn &
Lightfoot 2013), the BGCA-military partnership produced a Military
Teen Ambassadors (MTA) training program. As MTA aims to promote
positive outcomes in these youth despite adverse conditions, Resiliency
Theory (Masten, 2014; Masten & Reed, 2002) serves as the foundation
for the program and the 7 Cs of Resiliency model (competence, confi­
dence, character, connection, contribution, coping, and control) (Gins­
burg & Jablow, 2005) serves as the framework. MTA targets the
development of life skills and leadership abilities to increase youth

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kweston@g.clemson.edu (K.L. Weston).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101915
Received 23 May 2019; Received in revised form 9 December 2020; Accepted 17 January 2021
Available online 30 January 2021
0149-7189/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K.L. Weston et al.
resiliency in the face of constant change and instability and to help
youth adjust to the reintegration process following the parent’s return
from deployment.
MTA addresses resiliency and reintegration through a youth-led
model that allows youth to take ownership of their lives (Hamilton
et al., 2004) while positively developing under the supervision of a
caring adult partner (National Research Council & Institute for Medi­
cine, 2002). Each year, BGCA contacts select exemplary military BGCA
clubs from all over the globe to invite youth who have demonstrated
strong leadership skills, commitment to their club, and service to their
community to participate in MTA. Youth choosing to accept the invi­
tation then sign an agreement committing to the required training and
follow-up activities, such as briefing command leadership on their plan
of action to serve other teens in the community. These MTA participants
attend a centrally located three-day training in the United States with
the adult advisors from their home sites. While the core components of
resiliency and reintegration are addressed each year, the manner in
which they are addressed varies, as a new select group of youth forming
a “steering committee” creates and presents the training. During MTA,
youth lead and participate in interactive briefs about building and
maintaining resiliency in military families and coping strategies for the
reintegration portion of the deployment cycle. They also benefit from
hearing a motivational speaker discuss the importance of resiliency.
Additionally, they have opportunities to bond with one another and
their adult advisors through various social events, such as meals, games,
and outings in the host city. Following MTA, the youth return to their
respective military communities to share the lessons they learned about
resiliency and reintegration with other military youth to raise awareness
among their peers and set the example for them. While MTA emphasizes
knowledge of resiliency and reintegration, BGCA expected to see skill
development in additional areas, such as leadership, personal growth,
and community needs awareness due to its model in which all partici­
pants are trained to return to their communities in leadership roles.
MTA is grounded in a positive youth development (PYD) approach
emphasizing youth voice, which allows youth to play a decision-making
role in planning and program creation (Fox et al., 2008) and builds a
sense of empowerment when youths’ opinions and inputs on matters
that affect them are valued (Mitra, 2004). During MTA, youth lead and
are involved in the planning process and they are actively engaged with
their advisors and BGCA staff both during and after the training. Under
the guidance of these caring adults, they are given opportunities to
facilitate their own positive development (Hamilton et al., 2004; Na­
tional Research Council & Institute for Medicine, 2002) through plan­
ning, communication, and interactive activities. The integration of
youth voice and partnerships with caring adults, which has been shown
to increase youth community participation (Borden & Serido, 2009), is
intended to prepare youth to confidently return to their communities as
leaders who share their knowledge to help other youth cope with the
stressors of the military lifestyle. Ultimately, MTA provides an oppor­
tunity through which youth-led training may help increase community
needs awareness, promote the development of leadership skills and
personal growth, and contribute to increases in knowledge of resiliency
and reintegration. Fig. 1 provides a logic model demonstrating the
program components and desired short, medium, and long-term
outcomes.
Fig. 1. MTA Logic Model.
2
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
Literature on military youth often centers on negative outcomes of
the military lifestyle (Easterbrooks et al., 2013), such as behavioral and
emotional problems associated with the deployment cycle and frequent
relocations (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011). Fewer studies have exam­
ined asset-based leadership approaches to helping military youth cope
with the stressors of life in a military family (Easterbrooks et al., 2013).
Additionally, despite the growing number of programs available to
military youth, formal evaluations of such programs are scarce (Griffiths
& Townsend, 2018) including evaluations on MTA. Thus, more research
is needed to better understand how asset-based approaches for the
development of military youth may help them develop healthy coping
strategies, life skills, and a community support system to access when
they face challenges associated with the military lifestyle as well as their
transition to adulthood. Furthermore, assessment of these asset-based
approaches is needed to improve programming practices. Therefore,
the purpose of this study was to perform a preliminary formative eval­
uation to determine whether MTA is functioning as intended and to
identify ways to improve future programming. Although the findings of
this study may be specific to MTA, this study adds to the evaluation body
of knowledge by enhancing the small research base of program evalu­
ations targeting military youth. The evidence may inform future pro­
grams targeting resiliency, reintegration, and skill development among
military youth. It also responds to a call, in a recent report on
strengthening military families, for the Department of Defense to bolster
programming through the use of evidence-based practices and by part­
nering with community organizations that deliver services to address
the stressful military family lifestyle (National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2019). Finally, through the multi-year
research/practitioner partnership between the evaluation team and
BGCA, this study provides an example of the mutual benefits of a
participatory action research experience in which relationships and
balance of power of both parties are emphasized (Jones et al., 2011).
2. Literature review
The following review of literature examines Resiliency Theory and
the 7 Cs of Resiliency (Ginsburg & Jablow, 2005), defines reintegration
with respect to military families, and explores what is known about
knowledge of resiliency and reintegration associated with leadership
development programs, as well as youth and community outcomes.
Research questions and hypotheses are also presented.
2.1. Resilience
Youth belonging to military families face a number of stressors, such
as frequent relocations and parental separation (MacDermid Wadsworth
et al., 2017; Milburn & Lightfoot 2013), which may place them at risk
because of disruptions to their family and community circumstances
(Jenson & Fraser, 2015). Fortunately, previous research has shown that
when protective factors, such as family attachment and pro-social
community activities (Jenson & Fraser, 2015) are present in the lives
of youth who face similar family and community circumstances as
military-connected youth, their risk of engaging in maladaptive
behavior is lower (Forrest-Bank et al., 2015).
Resiliency is defined as “the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt
K.L. Weston et al.
successfully to disturbances that threaten system function, viability, or
development” (Masten, 2014, p. 6). Researchers have found that, despite
the challenges of their lifestyle, the majority of military youth tend to
“turn out just fine” (Easterbrooks et al., 2013, p. 99). Military youth who
fare well typically function in positive family, social, and community
surroundings (Easterbrooks et al., 2013). They also tend to have sup­
portive relationships with both the deployed and non-deployed parents
and even non-parental adult mentors (Easterbrooks et al., 2013).
Research targeting youth resiliency suggests that building on youth as­
sets is as important as addressing their deficits. In fact, Borden et al.
(2011) state, “youth resiliency is the ability of the youth to withstand the
stressors of life by drawing upon personal attributes, affectionate ties,
and external support systems” (p. 129). Masten (2014) points to three
approaches to build resiliency in young people: prevention or reduction
of risk factors (e.g., anti-drug campaigns); building on youth strengths or
assets (e.g., providing mentoring programs); and engaging in adaptive
processes (e.g., supporting youth in pro-social activities with peers).
Masten and Reed (2002) suggested that resiliency occurs not through
exceptional personal qualities, but through the interaction of individual
characteristics, the environment, and the relations between these di­
mensions, which contribute to a person’s ability to successfully rebound
in the face of adversity. Additionally, for a person to be considered
resilient, Masten and Reed (2002) suggest two criteria must be met: first,
one must exhibit a positive outcome, aligned with societal norms and
expectations (e.g., seeking out healthy friendships at a new school) and
second, conditions must be present that could have prevented positive
results (e.g., moving to a foreign country in which one does not speak the
native language).
The emphasis on youth assets and pro-social behaviors outlined in
Masten and Reed’s (2002) model of resiliency is well aligned with the
PYD perspective. The asset-based concept of PYD has progressed over
the past century as a response to a deficit model (Lerner, 2004) in which
youth were seen as “problems to be managed” (Roth et al., 1998, p. 442).
Up until roughly two decades ago, positive development in adolescence
was still often described as the absence of problem behaviors (Lerner
et al., 2005). However, “problem-free is not fully prepared” (Pittman
et al., 2011, p. 17). Lerner et al. (2006) suggest that there is more value
in the promotion of positive behaviors than the prevention of poor be­
haviors and that “young people are resources to be developed” (Roth
et al., 1998, p. 442). In developing young people as resources, the “Big
Three” framework of youth programs, which emphasizes youth-adult
partnerships, skill-building activities, and opportunities for youth lead­
ership, has been associated with positive outcomes for youth when
aligned with youth assets (Lerner et al., 2015; Tirrell et al., 2020), such
as healthy habits, school engagement, and sound decision-making
(Eccles & Gootman, 2002). The positive outcomes may then be
demonstrated through what Lerner et al. (2005) termed the Five Cs of
PYD, (competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring).
When youth exhibit the Five Cs, they are more likely to contribute to
themselves and their communities; therefore, contribution functions as
the 6th C (Lerner et al., 2015). The Five Cs model then served as the
foundation for the 7 Cs of Resiliency, which is described in more detail
below.
A well-known youth resiliency model used to inform youth devel­
opment practice, including BGCA’s MTA, is the 7 Cs model by Ginsburg
and Jablow (2005). Based on the Five Cs model of PYD (Lerner et al.,
2015) and including coping and control, this model provides a means
through which Resiliency Theory can be applied in a practical setting
(Ginsburg & Jablow, 2005). The 7 Cs model reflects the dynamic indi­
vidual⟵→context interactions that define resiliency. More specifically,
within the 7 Cs model of resiliency, competence refers to giving youth
opportunities to learn academic and communication skills necessary to
succeed in school and life; confidence embodies the notion of recognizing
and reinforcing youths’ strengths; character emphasizes moral values,
behavioral norms, and the ability to overcome obstacles; connection re­
fers to cultivating positive youth-adult relationships; contribution allows
3
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
for youth to serve families, communities, and society as a whole; coping
encompasses learning how to deal with and overcome stressful situa­
tions in a healthy manner; and control refers to helping youth exercise
self-control and responsibility when faced with risks and other chal­
lenges (Ginsburg & Jablow, 2005). The 7 Cs of Resiliency model was
adopted by BGCA for the purposes of working with military youth in
MTA.
2.2. Reintegration
In addition to building resiliency skills, military youth can also
overcome the hardships of deployment by developing an understanding
of what they can expect in terms of family functioning with respect to
reintegration (Marek et al., 2014). Reintegration follows deployment,
when the service member reunites with family and the family returns to
its pre-deployment routine (Marek et al., 2014). While families may
anticipate the reunion with great excitement, this stage may prove a
difficult time for youth (Huebner et al., 2007). In addition to a shift in
household roles and responsibilities upon the service member’s return
(Huebner & Mancini, 2005), military youth also tend to go through
developmental changes during the deployment (Marek et al., 2014) and
can experience disappointment when the parent fails to notice or
embrace those changes (Huebner et al., 2007). Developing a greater
understanding of what military youth experience through the process of
reintegration and how they cope with it can inform future programming
specifically targeting military youth.
2.3. Relationship between youth leadership development programs and
knowledge of resiliency and reintegration
Most of the literature does not specifically address leadership pro­
grams targeting military youths’ knowledge of resiliency and reintegra­
tion. However, it suggests that programs taking a PYD approach,
providing a supportive environment and strong connections with adults
play a large role in the overall well-being of military youth (Easterbrooks
et al., 2013). In recognition of the stressors placed on military youth and
families, programs offered on base or in local communities help families
prepare for deployments and frequent relocations (Esposito-Smythers
et al., 2011). For example, “Passport Toward Success” (PTS) gives mil­
itary youth the opportunity to rotate through workshop stations to learn
strategies to solve problems, deal with stress, and explore feelings with
their military youth peers (Wilson et al., 2011). Program participants
reported feeling more knowledgeable about resiliency after having
participated in the activities (Wilson et al., 2011). Another study
assessing the relationship between military youths’ camp experiences
and the development of resiliency found that campers who reported
reductions in stress associated with the camp also reported increases in
several areas, including friendship and competence, both of which are
important contributions to resiliency (Ginsburg & Jablow, 2005; Marek
et al., 2013).
Programs and services are also important in helping military youth
build confidence and coping skills so they do not fall prey to the negative
emotional or behavioral outcomes commonly associated with a tumul­
tuous lifestyle (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011). On-base prevention
programs are available to military youth which emphasize their assets
(Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011), teach them coping strategies (e.g.,
seeing their military youth status as a privilege rather than a burden)
(Easterbrooks et al., 2013), and other tools (e.g., problem-solving op­
portunities and communication training) to build resiliency during
deployment cycles and reintegration (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011).
2.4. Youth outcomes associated with youth leadership development
programs
Although few studies have specifically assessed personal growth
development of military youth who received a targeted leadership
K.L. Weston et al.
intervention, literature supports the influence of out-of-school-time
service-based activities on the development of pro-social skills and
personal growth among youth. Hansen et al. (2003) found that youth
engaged in service-based activities demonstrated more pro-social norms
and leadership skills than those involved in programs not emphasizing
service. Youth engaged in service-based activities were more likely to
have peers rely on them for support and to have leadership development
opportunities (Hansen et al., 2003). Additionally, youth involved in
service related activities have shown higher rates of teamwork, positive
relationships, and adult networks (Larson et al., 2006).
Literature associated with outcomes of other youth leadership pro­
grams has found similarly positive results. For example, in a study of a
livestock event including 4-H, Future Farmers of America (FFA), and
Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA), re­
searchers found that youth serving in a leadership role as school tour
guides for the event perceived they had increased levels of self-
understanding, teamwork, decision-making, communication, and lead­
ership (Real & Harlin, 2006). Another study assessing youth who were
involved in a variety of extracurricular activities found that those ful­
filling leadership roles reported an increased sense of responsibility
(Dworkin et al., 2003).
While not specifically emphasizing leadership skills, an intervention
available to military youth for the purpose of improving personal growth
showed promising preliminary results (Chawla, & MacDermid Wads­
worth, 2012). Participants in the one-week Operation Purple camp re­
ported increased levels of social acceptance and self-worth following the
intervention (Chawla & MacDermid Wadsworth, 2012). Additionally, in
a study of a 5-day Operation Military Kids (OMK) camp, military youth
reported significant improvements in communication, social, and
coping skills (Clary & Ferrari, 2015). Further, Hill and Francis (2014)
found that military youth attending a 4-H post-deployment support
camp perceived improvements in competence, responsibility, confi­
dence, and teamwork. Overall, previous youth-centered service-based
and leadership interventions appear to have demonstrated perceived
improvements in leadership skills (Dworkin et al., 2003; Hansen et al.,
2003; Real & Harlin, 2006) and personal growth (Chawla & MacDermid
Wadsworth, 2012; Clary & Ferrari, 2015) that promote the well-being
and positive development of youth, both of which have been linked to
resiliency among military youth (Easterbrooks et al., 2013; Esposi­
to-Smythers et al., 2011).
2.5. Community outcomes associated with youth leadership development
programs
The benefits of leadership programs and other youth services are not
limited to perceived leadership skills and personal growth improve­
ments for youth. They can also yield PYD benefits for youth at the
community level. For instance, the previously mentioned program,
OMK, not only provides camp opportunities for youth, but also connects
military youth with their communities by raising citizens’ awareness
about the importance of military youths’ well-being and facilitating
opportunities for them to participate in educational, social, and leisure
programs (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011).
Youth participating in community organizations emphasizing lead­
ership and service have also reported stronger awareness of community
needs and connections, having learned about helping others in the
community, and having had the opportunity to build trusting relation­
ships with adult members of the community (Hansen et al., 2003; Larson
et al., 2006). In doing so, young people prepare themselves for the
community roles in which they will one day serve as adults (Hansen
et al., 2003). In fact, according to Larson et al. (2006), the percentage of
youth participating in service activities who feel they already made a
positive impact in their school or community was nearly double
compared with those not involved in service activities. Ultimately,
awareness of and involvement in community activities facilitate a
number of PYD outcomes, which also promote resiliency among young
4
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
people (Masten, 2014).
2.6. Summary
The literature suggests that youth programming emphasizing lead­
ership and service can positively influence youth and their communities
in terms of personal growth and community connections (Hansen et al.,
2003; Larson et al., 2006). Additionally, the 7 Cs provide an asset-based
model through which young people can learn resiliency in times of
adversity (Ginsburg & Jablow, 2005), and some base-sponsored pro­
grams offer strategies for helping military youth cope with deployment
and reintegration (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011). Despite the avail­
ability of such programming, a literature gap exists with respect to
assessing military youths’ knowledge of resiliency and reintegration.
Given their unique set of challenges, a richer understanding of programs
targeting military youth is needed to inform future practices. Thus, this
study seeks to enhance the body of knowledge on how asset-based
leadership programming facilitates military youths’ knowledge of resil­
iency and reintegration, self-perceived personal growth and skill
development, and community needs awareness.
2.7. Study contribution, research questions, and hypotheses
The study was informed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006)
four-level evaluation model comprised of assessing participant reaction,
learning, behavior, and results. The authors equated reaction to
customer service, suggesting a positive reaction may not lead to
learning; however, a negative reaction will likely prevent it. Learning is
described as a change in participants’ attitudes, knowledge, or skills
related to the program’s objectives. Behavior refers to the extent
behavior has changed because of one’s participation in the program.
Finally, results refer to the learning and behavioral outcomes directly
and indirectly benefiting both participants and non-participants
respectively, that can be attributed to one’s participation in the pro­
gram (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The following research ques­
tions guided this mixed-method study and were mapped to the four-level
framework: RQ1-How are the topics of resiliency and reintegration
received by military youth participating in an asset-based leadership
development program? H1-Participation in an asset-based leadership
development program will contribute to increases in military youths’
knowledge of resiliency and reintegration (Learning and Results);
RQ2-How does participation in an asset-based leadership development
program contribute to military youths’ self-perceptions of personal
growth and skill development? H2-Participation in an asset-based
leadership development program will contribute to improvements in
military youths’ perceived personal growth and skill development (Re­
action, Behavior, and Results). RQ3-How does participation in an
asset-based leadership development program contribute to military
youths’ community needs awareness? H3-Participation in an asset-based
leadership development program will contribute to increases in military
youths’ community needs awareness (Behavior and Results).
3. Method
3.1. Study design
This project was reviewed and approved through the research team’s
university Institutional Review Board (approval #IRB2016-399) on
December 2, 2016. The population for this study included all BGCA Teen
Ambassadors who attended the 2017 MTA training. A pretest/posttest/
6-month posttest design was used to evaluate immediate and long-term
outcomes associated with MTA participation.
3.2. Participants
The sample consisted of 91 Teen Ambassadors, including eight teen
K.L. Weston et al.
members of the Steering Committee who planned and facilitated the
training. Most respondents were female (48.4 %) and the remainder
were either male (44 %) or did not answer the question (7.7 %). Par­
ticipants’ ages ranged from 14 to 18. Most participants were either 15
years old (26.7 %) or 17 years old (26.7 %). Multiple ethnic/racial
groups were represented, with most respondents identifying as White
(33.3 %), Black/African-American (24.1 %), or Hispanic/Latino (14.9
%).
Of the 91 who attended the training, 87 participants completed both
the pretest and the posttest. Therefore, the overall response rate for the
posttest questionnaire was 95 %. Of the 91 who attended the training, 34
completed the pretest, posttest, and 6-month posttest. Therefore, the
overall response rate for the 6-month follow-up posttest was 37 %. Most
respondents in the 6-month posttest sample (n = 34) were female (55.9
%), and the remainder were either male (41.2 %), or chose not to answer
the question (2.9 %). Participants’ ages ranged from 14 to 18 years old.
Most participants were either 16 years old (29.4 %) or 17 years old (26.5
%). Multiple ethnic/racial groups were represented, with most re­
spondents identifying themselves as Black/African American (32.4 %),
White, (26.5 %), or multi-racial (17.6 %).
3.3. Data collection
Data were collected using questionnaires administered before (pre­
test), immediately after (posttest), and 6-months following the training
(6-month posttest). The pretest questionnaire - which was available
either online through Qualtrics three days prior to the MTA or on paper
during MTA check-in to those who had not completed the Qualtrics
version - was comprised of demographic questions as well as 5-point
Likert-type scale questions. These questions addressed respondents’
level of knowledge regarding resiliency and reintegration, perceived
leadership and skill development and civic efficacy, as well as commu­
nity needs awareness. A member of the research team administered the
paper posttest questionnaire on the last day of the training. It replicated
pretest questions except for the detailed demographic data. Addition­
ally, the posttest included questions about personal growth and open-
ended questions targeting participants’ overall experience at MTA.
The 6-month posttest questionnaire was offered online via Qualtrics and
distributed by the MTA coordinators. The questionnaire replicated the
Likert-type scale questions from the pretest and posttest questionnaire
related to participants’ knowledge of resiliency and reintegration, per­
ceptions of growth in leadership skills, public speaking skills, and civic
efficacy, as well as community needs awareness. The 6-month posttest
questionnaire also included open-ended questions assessing partici­
pants’ perceptions of individual and community-level impacts of MTA.
3.4. Measures
To measure subject matter knowledge change with respect to resil­
iency and reintegration, as well as community needs awareness, public
speaking/leadership skills, civic efficacy, and self-perceptions of per­
sonal growth, questions were either developed by BGCA and the
research team or adapted from validated scales.
3.4.1. Knowledge of resiliency and reintegration and community needs
awareness
To assess subject matter knowledge change, the research team
worked with BGCA staff to develop items assessing participant knowl­
edge of resiliency, reintegration, (H1) and awareness of community
needs (H3). Participants were asked to respond to six items addressing
these topics at the pre-, post-, and 6-month posttest. These items were
rated on a scale from 1 = Not at all aware to 5 = Extremely aware. A
sample item includes, “To what extent has your participation in the
Military Teen Ambassadors training changed your level of knowledge/
awareness of 7 Cs of resiliency?”
5
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
3.4.2. Public speaking and leadership skills
Items from the Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth (SCS-Y)
(Peterson et al., 2011) were used to measure public speaking and
leadership skills (H2). At all three data collection times, participants
were asked to rate on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly
agree, ten items targeting leadership opportunities and public speaking.
A sample item includes, “I find it very easy to talk in front of a group.”
The public speaking subscale demonstrated reliability with α = .69 at
pretest, α = .70 at posttest, and α = .90 at the 6-month posttest. The
leadership subscale demonstrated reliability with α = .87 at pretest, α =
.89 at posttest, and α = .96 at the 6-month posttest.
3.4.3. Civic efficacy
Civic efficacy (H2) was assessed using the civic efficacy scale from
the Youth Civic and Character Measures Toolkit, which measures
“young people’s understanding of different civic-related character
strengths,” (Syvertsen et al., 2015, p. 5). At all three data collection
points, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed
with four items, on a scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree. A
sample statement includes, “I can make a positive difference in my
community.” The scale demonstrated reliability with α = .81 at pretest,
α = .83 at posttest, and α = .98 at the 6-month posttest.
3.4.4. Personal growth
To measure self-perceptions in areas related to the training (H2), the
research team developed six items based on information received from
the BGCA staff regarding goals for the training. At both the posttest and
6-month posttest, participants were asked to rate whether they agreed or
disagreed, on a scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree, with
statements focused on their self-perceptions of personal growth. A
sample item includes, “As a result of participating in the Military Teen
Ambassadors training, I am more confident” and “As a result of
participating in the Military Teen Ambassadors training, I am a stronger
leader.” In addition to quantitative items, several open-ended questions
were included in the questionnaires to provide a rich, qualitative
perspective to enhance some of the close-ended questions related to the
efficacy of training. An example item includes, “How, if at all, did the
Military Teen Ambassadors training help you to become a better
leader?”
3.5. Data analysis
Mixed quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed
for this study. Quantitative data were analyzed using either descriptive
or inferential statistics in IBM SPSS version 22.0. Qualitative data were
analyzed using conventional content analysis (Hseih & Shannon, 2005)
to code the qualitative responses based on frequency and salience.
Differences between participants’ pretest, posttest, and 6-month
posttest responses were tested in two ways to examine both statisti­
cally significant and programmatically meaningful differences. First,
repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was used to
determine whether there was a significant difference (p <.05) between
participants’ composite scores over time. Sphericity (i.e., the assump­
tion that differences across time have equal variances) was also evalu­
ated. When sphericity was violated, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction
was applied to account for unequal variance across time. Power analysis
for a repeated measures ANOVA with one group and three measurement
occasions was conducted in G*POWER to determine a sufficient sample
size, using an alpha of 0.05, a power of 0.80, and a medium effect size (f
= 0.30) (Cunningham & McCrum-Gardner, 2007). Based on these as­
sumptions, the desired sample size was at least 90. After each
RM-ANOVA test was conducted, three paired samples t-tests were used
to make post-hoc comparisons between the three time periods. In this
step, due to the high number of RM-ANOVA comparisons, a Bonferroni
correction was applied to the alpha level.
Second, the size of the difference between pretest, posttest, and 6-
K.L. Weston et al.
month posttest scores was calculated (i.e., eta squared). This calculation
provided a measure of the magnitude of change (i.e., effect size) over
time. For eta squared, effect size values between .02 and .13 are
considered a “small” effect, values between .13 and .26 are considered a
“medium” effect, and values that exceed .26 are considered a “large”
effect (Cohen, 1988).
Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using a deductive-
inductive conventional content analysis approach (Hseih & Shannon,
2005) in which the themes were constructed by the researchers but also
informed by sensitizing concepts from the literature (Bowen, 2019).
Analysis of the open-ended questions involved the following steps. First,
all responses were read with close attention paid to recurring expres­
sions in the data. Then, notable and similar responses (i.e., codes) were
identified based on specificity of the sentiment expressed (e.g., enjoy­
ment of teamwork). Next, similar codes were then grouped into cate­
gories (e.g., increased networking opportunities; improved
communication; opportunities to practice public speaking). Finally,
emergent themes were developed based on the categories and utilized to
complement the quantitative findings.
4. Results
This section details both quantitative and qualitative responses. For
each area of focus (e.g., personal growth and skill development),
quantitative results are presented first, followed by qualitative results.
4.1. Knowledge of resiliency
Participants were asked to identify how their knowledge had
changed in key areas related to resiliency and reintegration because of
participation in the MTA (H1). RM-ANOVA was used to compare
knowledge scores before MTA, after MTA, and 6-months after MTA.
There was a significant effect of time on participants’ knowledge of
the 7 Cs of Resiliency (H1) (with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction
because of violations of sphericity), Wilk’s λ = .318, F(1.49, 47.51) =
53.33, p < .05, partial η2 = .63 (Table 1). Three paired samples t-tests
were used to make post-hoc comparisons between the time periods. A
first paired samples t-test indicated that there was an increase in
knowledge of the 7 Cs of Resiliency between the periods before the MTA
(M = 2.27, SD = 1.18) and after the MTA (M = 4.21, SD = 0.60), a
statistically significant mean increase of 1.94, SE = 0.24, p < .001. A
second paired samples t-test indicated that there was an increase in
knowledge of the 7 Cs of Resiliency between the periods before MTA (M
= 2.73, SD = 1.18) and 6-months after MTA (M = 4.21, SD = 0.60), a
statistically significant mean increase of 2.00, SE = 0.26, p < .001. A
third paired samples t-test indicated that there was a small increase in
knowledge of the 7 Cs of Resiliency between the periods after MTA (M =
4.21, SD =0. 60) and 6-months after MTA (M = 4.27, SD = 0.72), a mean
increase of 0.06 which was not statistically significant (p > .05).
Participants were also asked to list the 7 Cs of Resiliency in an open-
ended question on the posttest. Fifty-five percent of the participants
listed all 7 Cs of Resiliency correctly, 38 % identified most of the 7 Cs
correctly, and only three participants were unable to list any of the 7 Cs.
Two participants described the 7 Cs in their own words.
Table 1
Participant Knowledge of Resiliency and Reintegration, and Community Needs Awareness (N = 34).
Item Before MTA After MTA
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
7 C’s of resiliency 2.27 4.21
(1.18) (.60)
Reintegration of military family members 2.88 4.36
(1.22) (.70)
Current needs of military teens in your community 3.18 3.924
(1.29) (.92)
6
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
4.2. Knowledge of reintegration
There was a significant effect of time on participants’ knowledge of
the reintegration of military family members (H1) (with a Greenhouse-
Geisser correction because of violations of sphericity), Wilk’s λ = .48, F
(1.35, 43.06) = 29.38, p < .05, partial η2 = .48 (Table 1). Three paired
samples t-tests were used to make post-hoc comparisons between the
time periods. A first paired samples t-test indicated that there was an
increase in knowledge of the reintegration of military family members
between the periods before MTA (M = 2.88, SD = 1.22) and after MTA
(M = 4.36, SD = 0.70), a statistically significant mean increase of 1.49,
SE = 0.26, p < .001. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there
was an increase in knowledge of the reintegration of military family
members between the periods before MTA (M = 2.88, SD = 1.22) and 6-
months after MTA (M = 4.36, SD = 0.60), a statistically significant mean
increase of 1.49, SE = 0.262, p < .001. A third paired samples t-test
indicated that there was no change in knowledge of the reintegration of
military family members between the periods after MTA (M = 4.36, SD
= 0.70) and 6-months after MTA (M = 4.36, SD = 0.60).
Youth were also given the opportunity on the posttest to describe
how they would define the term “reintegration” to a friend. Sixty-seven
percent of respondents described reintegration as the welcoming home
of the deployed family member and helping the family return to a state
of normalcy. Those who deviated from the definition either gave no
response, a vague response, or mentioned unrelated topics. Overall,
participants’ responses to this question reflected an accurate under­
standing of the concept of reintegration as presented.
4.3. Community needs awareness
There was a significant effect of time on participants’ awareness of
the current needs of military teens in their community (H3) (with a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction because of violations of sphericity),
Wilk’s λ = .65, F(1.65, 54.38) = 13.033, p < .05, partial η2 = .28
(Table 1). Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post-hoc
comparisons between the time periods. A first paired samples t-test
indicated that there was an increase in knowledge of the current needs of
military teens in their community between the periods before MTA (M =
3.18, SD = 1.29) and after MTA (M = 3.92, SD = 0.92), a statistically
significant mean increase of 0.75, SE = 0.23, p < .05. A second paired
samples t-test indicated that there was an increase in knowledge of the
current needs of military teens in their community between the periods
before MTA (M = 3.18, SD = 1.29) and 6-months after MTA (M = 4.29,
SD = 0.91), a statistically significant mean increase of 1.12, SE = 0.26, p
< .001. A third paired samples t-test indicated that there was an increase
in knowledge of the current needs of military teens in their community
between the periods immediately after MTA (M = 3.92, SD = 0.92) and
6-months after MTA (M = 4.29, SD = 0.91), a mean increase which was
not statistically significant, p > .05.
4.4. Perceptions of personal growth and skill development
At both the posttest and the 6-month posttest, youth rated whether
they agreed with statements about their level of competence, confi­
dence, and other areas of personal growth as a result of participation in
6-months After MTA F P Eta2
Mean (SD) (Statistical Significance) (Effect Size)
4.27 53.33 <.05 0.63
(.72) (large)
4.36 29.38 <.05 0.48
(.60) (large)
4.29 13.03 <.05 0.28
(.91) (large)
K.L. Weston et al.
MTA(H2) (Fig. 2). There was broad agreement that MTA had a positive
influence on participants in meaningful ways. At the posttest, 46 % of
participants identified feeling more positive about themselves while 31
% identified feeling more competent and responsible. All areas of per­
sonal growth (i.e., confidence, competence, responsibility, leadership,
and public speaking), except for having a more positive sense of self,
reflected an increase from the posttest to 6-month posttest measures.
Furthermore, over 73 % of 6-month posttest respondents indicated they
agreed or strongly agreed that MTA positively impacted them in all areas
of personal growth in the six months following MTA.
Participants rated their level of agreement with specific statements
related to whether the MTA training impacted their skills in areas
including leadership, public speaking, and civic efficacy (H2) (Table 2).
RM-ANOVA tests were conducted to compare skill scores before MTA, at
the end of MTA, and at the 6-month post-training increment.
There was a significant effect of time on participants’ leadership
skills (H2) (with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction because of violations
of sphericity), Wilk’s λ = .73, F(1.29, 38.76) = 8.260, p <.05, partial η2
= .22 (Table 2). Three paired samples t-tests were used to make post-hoc
comparisons between the time periods. A first paired samples t-test
indicated that there was an increase in leadership skills between the
periods before MTA (M = 3.79, SD = 0.57) and after MTA (M = 3.91, SD
= 0.68), a mean increase of 0.12, which was not statistically significant,
p > .05. A second paired samples t-test indicated that there was an in­
crease in leadership skills between the periods before MTA (M = 3.79,
SD = 0.57) and 6- months after MTA (M = 4.25, SD = 0.84), a statisti­
cally significant mean increase of 0.47, SE = 0.14, p < .05. A third paired
samples t-test indicated that there was an increase in leadership skills
between the periods after MTA (M = 3.91, SD = 0.68) and 6-months
after MTA (M = 4.25, SD = 0.84), a statistically significant mean in­
crease of 0.35, SE = 0.14, p < .05.
On the open-ended portions of the posttest and 6-month posttest,
participants stated how MTA helped them improve their leadership
skills. The most common examples cited included: (1) having the op­
portunity to meet and work with new people and, (2) learning to
effectively communicate both verbally and through body language. For
example, one participant stated, “the Teen Ambassador Training helped
me learn how to talk and connect with new people, which is vital in
leadership.” Some participants credited the Steering Committee and
BGCA staff for modeling quality leadership from which they learned.
Upon returning home, some youth took the lead to effect community-
level changes. One participant shared, “after this leadership role I feel
more confident…my impact as a new Teen Ambassador has given me a
greater voice and wider opinion as far as views and events at my Teen
Center.” These statements reflect a positive change in participants’
Fig. 2. Mean Scores for Personal Growth (Competence, Confidence, Re­
sponsibility, Leadership, Public Speaking and Sense of Self) as a Result of
Military Teen Ambassadors training at the Posttest and 6-Month Posttest
Measures.
Note. Response scale ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
7
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
approach to leadership as a result of MTA.
There was no effect of time on participants’ public speaking skills
(H2) (with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction because of violations of
sphericity), Wilk’s λ = .98, F(1.31, 43.14) = 0.54, p = .51 (Table 2).
However, MTA participants who were also Steering Committee mem­
bers indicated in the qualitative responses that they grew their public
speaking skills through planning and delivering the presentations. Many
participants also appreciated being able to speak up and share their own
experiences with the whole group.
On the 6-month posttest, some respondents indicated that MTA
helped their public speaking skills flourish after they returned home,
allowing them to connect with others and voice their opinions. One
participant stated, “With the Teen Ambassador, they gave us many op­
portunities to open up to our peers. We gained better experience with
public speaking, making new friends, and exploring the lives of one
another. Since 6 months have passed, I use this knowledge to help my
day to day life.” The qualitative insights suggest a lasting and positive
change resulting from MTA.
There was no effect of time on participants’ civic efficacy skills (H2)
(with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction because of violations of sphe­
ricity), Wilk’s λ = .99, F(1.68, 55.28) = 0.02, p = .97 (Table 2). Several
participants did not answer the open-ended question pertaining to civic
efficacy; however, those who answered provided mostly positive feed­
back. Numerous participants indicated they learned new ideas from the
presentations, talking with other participants, and/or watching the
videos which showcased individual bases’ clubs. One participant indi­
cated, “We heard several new ideas from other installations and plan to
implement many of them.” Though some participants did not feel MTA
motivated them to get more involved in their community, some stated
that they were already involved. One participant shared, “[MTA] didn’t
[help] because I already care so much, if I were new it would have been
helpful.” These statements convey a positive effect of MTA on partici­
pants with respect to civic efficacy, however for participants who are
already actively engaged in their respective communities, the training
may have been less impactful.
The responses to the 6-month posttest qualitative questions suggest a
positive change in civic efficacy. Numerous participants reported
becoming more aware of community activities and projects and dis­
cussed their increased participation in them. One participant shared,
“We all go out and help so much I believe we changed the community
and the city to be a better and cleaner place.” Another stated, “I help
with more community projects.” The increased action taken by Teen
Ambassadors within their respective communities reflects the emphasis
on civic efficacy applied in the six months following the training.
5. Discussion
This preliminary formative study evaluated how MTA contributed to
participants’ knowledge of resiliency and reintegration; self-perceptions
of personal growth and skill development; and community needs
awareness. The study findings suggested that MTA positively contrib­
uted to knowledge of resiliency and reintegration (H1); perceived
leadership skills (H2); and community needs awareness (H3). Further,
the qualitative responses were triangulated with the quantitative data in
the aforementioned areas, suggesting perceived growth with respect to
participants’ public speaking skills. Although these findings are
encouraging, they should be interpreted with caution as no control
group was included in the study, and therefore, reported growth cannot
be directly linked to participation in the MTA. Additionally, the sample
is not generalizable beyond military-connected youth interested in
service.
The findings on knowledge of resiliency (H1) are particularly
important when considering military youth. As mentioned in the litera­
ture review, there is limited empirical evidence of how a leadership
program impacts military youth with respect to resiliency knowledge.
Our findings support prior literature by revealing that MTA’s integration
K.L. Weston et al.
Table 2
Perceived Skill Growth and Development Associated with MTA (N = 34).
Item Before MTA After MTA 6-months After MTA
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Leadership 3.79 3.91 4.25
(0.57) (0.67) (0.84)
Public Speaking 3.90 3.94 4.06
(0.84) (0.75) (1.12)
Civic Efficacy 4.38 4.37 4.40
(0.46) (0.66) (0.93)
of Ginsburg and Jablow’s (2005) 7 Cs of Resiliency model was associ­
ated with significant increases in participants’ knowledge and aware­
ness of resiliency. Additionally, a majority of participants correctly
identified all 7 Cs of Resiliency, suggesting a strong grasp of the concepts
imparted at MTA Finally, a majority of youth reported personal growth
in several capacities reflective of resilience (e.g., competence, confi­
dence). Easterbrooks et al. (2013) suggest that individuals who exhibit
strong associations with each of Lerner et al.’s (2015) Five Cs of PYD
tend to flourish and display resiliency. These findings add to the liter­
ature on resiliency by suggesting that incorporating the 7 Cs into lead­
ership development programs may be an effective strategy to contribute
to the knowledge of resiliency among military youth.
With respect to reintegration (H1), many studies have examined
negative outcomes (e.g., mental health concerns and disciplinary
problems) experienced by military youth (Chandra et al., 2010; Huebner
& Mancini, 2005; Knobloch et al., 2017; MacDermid Wadsworth et al.,
2017); however, Esposito-Smythers et al. (2011) suggest that
asset-based programming may help alleviate stressors experienced by
families undergoing reintegration. Our study found that participation in
MTA was associated with significant increases in knowledge of reinte­
gration. Additionally, most participants correctly defined reintegration.
Knowledge of reintegration can help foster confidence in youth, which
may protect them from deployment induced stressors, allowing them to
cope with deployment in a healthy manner (Esposito-Smythers et al.,
2011). Finally, this study’s findings also point to a unique approach to
preparing for reintegration through a leadership program centered
specifically on military youth.
The increases in self-perceived personal growth (i.e., confidence,
competence, responsibility, leadership, and public speaking) and lead­
ership skills (H2) support prior research indicating that youth involved
in service-based training also exhibit higher levels of teamwork (Larson
et al., 2006; Real & Harlin, 2006), communication (Real & Harlin, 2006;
Rutherford et al., 2002), and leadership skills (Hansen et al., 2003; Real
& Harlin, 2006; Rutherford et al., 2002). That said, the decrease in sense
of self was a surprising finding; however, this decrease may be attributed
to humility gained from participating in MTA. In other words, the youth
who are invited to participate in the program tend to stand out in their
own communities, but when they are grouped with other similar
high-performing youth, they may not stand out as much and, thus, not
perceive themselves as positively. The increases in personal growth
support Masten and Reed’s (2002) Resiliency Theory, which suggests
that focusing on youth assets and providing opportunities for them to
participate in pro-social activities supports the understanding of resil­
iency. It is important to note, however, that measurements for personal
growth were not taken at the pre-test, but only at the post- and 6-month
post-test; therefore, other factors outside of MTA may have contributed
to the increases.
The findings also suggest that MTA contributed to community
awareness (H3) between pre- and 6-month posttest with participants
reporting an increase in awareness of needs of military teens in their
communities. Additionally, a number of participants mentioned up-
scaling outreach efforts, which resulted in more youth joining their
programs and collaborating with community actors to carry out service
events. These findings align with prior research indicating youth lead­
ership and service-oriented programs are associated with positive
8
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
F P Eta2
(Statistical Significance) (Effect Size)
8.26 <.05 0.22
(medium)
0.54 .513 –
0.02 .967 –
community outcomes (Hansen et al., 2003; Larson et al., 2006).
5.1. Limitations
Several study limitations are acknowledged. First, the study relied on
self-reported data, which comes with the risk of participants not being
truthful in the event they opt to give answers they think are more
socially-acceptable. That said, our study did not ask sensitive questions
(e.g., questions about risky behaviors) that may elicit untruthful re­
sponses. Also, a number of precautions were taken to reduce the likeli­
hood of reporting inaccuracies, such as longitudinal data collection,
supervised survey administration, and multiple methods of data
collection.
Additionally, measures for knowledge of resiliency, reintegration,
community needs awareness, as well as the individual areas of personal
growth were each analyzed as single-item measures, which can nega­
tively impact the reliability and validity of a measure. However, single-
item measures addressing only one construct have been found to be as
valid and reliable as scaled items measuring the same construct (Jordan
& Turner, 2008).
We were also limited to 6-month posttest findings. Additional follow-
up at longer time increments may have produced a clearer under­
standing of potential long-term impact; however, the longitudinal
design used was more robust than commonly used cross-sectional
designs.
Next, we had a fairly low response rate on the 6-month posttest.
However, this was expected, considering many of the youth who
participated in MTA had relocated prior to the dissemination of the final
survey, due to the transient nature of their military family lifestyles.
Additionally, the basic pre/post-test design provides another limi­
tation. Wording of questions asked about the MTA before participants
had attended may have influenced them to provide more positive an­
swers at the post-test. Next, items measuring personal growth were not
measured at the pretest, but only at the two posttests, which makes it
difficult to discern whether the MTA contributed to changes in personal
growth or whether changes were influenced by other factors outside of
the MTA. That said, measuring these items at pre-test could have
contributed to survey fatigue and a potential response-shift bias at the
posttests because participants may have had a different understanding of
the definitions of competence, confidence, etc. after having received the
training (Howard & Dailey, 1979). Thus, a pre-post test design for these
measures may not necessarily have provided a more clear demonstration
of change with respect to personal growth.
Finally, the research design lacking a control group proves a major
limitation to this study, making it difficult to effectively determine
whether the changes observed were, in fact, attributable to the MTA
intervention. Despite the study design, however, the qualitative re­
sponses suggest that MTA played a large role in the changes observed.
5.2. Lessons learned
This study’s findings suggest that MTA contributed to increases in
knowledge of resiliency and reintegration among military youth (H1);
improved self-perceptions of personal growth and leadership skills (H2);
and increases in community needs awareness (H3). Programs wishing to
K.L. Weston et al.
build a strong understanding of resiliency and reintegration, contribute
to improvements in personal growth, and increase community aware­
ness among military youth may consider integrating a leadership
component, which builds on youth assets, into their program designs.
Additionally, the 7 Cs of Resiliency model provides a solid framework
upon which such a design may be created. Despite these positive find­
ings, our quantitative findings did not find that MTA contributed to
improvements in public speaking skills and civic efficacy (H2). Quali­
tative findings provided some insight as to why these findings may not
have been significant. Several participants suggested they either did not
have an opportunity to speak in front of a group or were already
comfortable speaking in front of a group and that they were already
involved in their communities; therefore, MTA did not act as a catalyst
to promote growth in those areas. However, such insights may not be
representative of the entire group of participants.
Overall, MTA’s model appears to operate as intended with respect to
making contributions to increases in knowledge of resiliency and rein­
tegration (H1) and improvements in self-perceived personal growth
(H2), leadership skills (H2), and community needs awareness (H3).
However, small changes to the program may improve the experience for
the participants. MTA could facilitate more opportunities for youth to
practice public speaking, encourage participants to share how they
contribute to their own communities to inspire civic efficacy, and stress
to them how impressive they are to have been invited to participate in
the program in an effort to promote a stronger sense of self.
This evaluation could have been strengthened by following up with
participants one year after MTA to identify additional tangible out­
comes, such as new leadership positions obtained, new programs
implemented within the community, or detailed descriptions of the
reintegration phase for participants who experienced a service parent’s
homecoming. Such outcomes could have then been examined to identify
whether and how they were related to participating in MTA. Such an
approach was beyond the terms outlined prior to this study, however,
and follow-up participation may have been difficult to obtain, due to the
mobile nature of military families.
5.3. Future research
In terms of resiliency and reintegration, most of this study’s focus
centered on participant understanding of the concepts. Future research
could uncover the practical techniques participants used to implement
the 7 Cs and to help facilitate family reintegration, such as organizing
family meetings or creating youth support groups. More nuanced in­
formation about the practical application of the information learned at
the MTA could help inform future programs seeking to support and
positively develop military youth.
6. Conclusions
Military youth face the typical challenges of adolescent develop­
ment, coupled with the instability of a military family lifestyle. While
the odds may appear to be stacked against them, MTA provides an op­
portunity for military youth to learn to negotiate the hardships associ­
ated with their lifestyle. With the program’s asset-based approach and
emphasis on leadership and service, military youth receive tools to un­
derstand resiliency through personal growth and community needs
awareness, while finding their footing with more ease during the process
of family reintegration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Boys and Girls Clubs of America who provided
9
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
support and funding for this project.
References
Borden, L., & Serido, J. (2009). From program participant to engaged citizen: A
developmental journey. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(4), 423–438.
Borden, L. M., Schlomer, G. L., & Wiggs, C. B. (2011). The evolving role of youth workers.
Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 124–136.
Bowen, G. A. (2019). Sensitizing concepts. SAGE Research Methods Foundations. SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036788357
Boys and Girls Clubs of America. (2013). Great think: Creating great futures for military
families and youth.
Chandra, A., Lara-Cinisomo, S., Jaycox, L. H., Tanielian, T., Burns, R. M., Ruder, T., &
Han, B. (2010). Children on the homefront: The experience of children from military
families. Pediatrics, 125(1), 16–25.
Chawla, N., & MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M. (2012). The impact of an Operation Purple
Camp intervention on military children and adolescents’ self-perception of social
acceptance, athletic competence, and global self-worth. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 40(3), 267–278.
Clary, C. D., & Ferrari, T. M. (2015). Communication, coping, and connections: Campers’
and parents’ perspectives of self-efficacy and benefits of participation in deployment
support camps. Journal of Youth Development, 10(2), 31–54.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cunningham, J. B., & McCrum-Gardner, E. (2007). Power, effect and sample size using
GPower: Practical issues for researchers and members of research ethics committees.
Evidence-Based Midwifery, 5(4), 132–137.
Department of Defense. (2010). Report on the impact of deployment of members of the armed
forces on their dependent children. Retrieved from http://download.militaryones
ource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/Report-to-Congress-on-Impact-of-Deployment
-on-Military-Children.pdf.
Department of Defense. (2018). 2018 demographics – Profile of the military community.
Retrieved from http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports
/2018-demographics-report.pdf.
Dworkin, J. B., Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth
experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(1), 17–26.
Easterbrooks, M. A., Ginsburg, K., & Lerner, R. M. (2013). Resilience among military
youth. The Future of Children, 99–120.
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Personal and social assets that promote well-being.
Community programs to promote youth development (pp. 66–85).
Esposito-Smythers, C., Wolff, J., Lemmon, K. M., Bodzy, M., Swenson, R. R., & Spirito, A.
(2011). Military youth and the deployment cycle: Emotional health consequences
and recommendations for intervention. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 497.
Forrest-Bank, S. S., Nicotera, N., Anthony, E. K., & Jenson, J. M. (2015). Finding their
Way: Perceptions of risk, resilience, and positive youth development among
adolescents and young adults from public housing neighborhoods. Children and
Youth Services Review, 55, 147–158.
Fox, J., Tarifa, T., & Machtmes, K. (2008). A qualitative examination of youth voice in
the decision-making process within the 4-H youth development program: Promoting
promising practices in overcoming barriers. Journal of Youth Development, 3(3),
113–129.
Ginsburg, K. R., & Jablow, M. M. (2005). Building resilience in children and teens: Giving
kids roots and wings. American Academy of Pediatrics.
Griffiths, H. K., & Townsend, J. A. (2018). Recreation-based camps for military children:
Past, present, and future. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Educational Leadership, 10(2),
97–108.
Hamilton, S. F., Hamilton, M. A., & Pittman, K. (2004). Principles for youth development.
In S. Hamilton, & M. Hamilton (Eds.), The youth development handbook: Coming of age
in American communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What adolescents learn in
organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 25–55.
Hooper, L. M., Marotta, S. A., & Lanthier, R. P. (2008). Predictors of growth and distress
following childhood parentification: A retrospective exploratory study. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 17(5), 693–705.
Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-shift bias: A source of contamination of
self- report measures. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 144–150.
Hseih, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Huebner, A. J., & Mancini, J. A. (2005). Adjustments among adolescents in military
families when a parent is deployed. Final report to the military family research institute
and department of defense quality of life office (pp. 1–50).
Huebner, A. J., Mancini, J. A., Wilcox, R. M., Grass, S. R., & Grass, G. A. (2007). Parental
deployment and youth in military families: Exploring uncertainty and ambiguous
loss. Family Relations, 56(2), 112–122.
Jenson, J. M., & Fraser, M. W. (Eds.). (2015). Social policy for children and families: A risk
and resilience perspective. Sage Publications.
Jones, K. R., Keller, T. E., & Wheeler, M. E. (2011). Innovation in Collaboration: The
Summer Institute on Youth Mentoring as a university-community partnership.
Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 4, 168–185.
Jordan, J. S., & Turner, B. A. (2008). The feasibility of single-item measures for
organizational justice. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(4),
237–257.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels.
Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
K.L. Weston et al.
Knobloch, L. K., Knobloch-Fedders, L. M., Yorgason, J. B., Ebata, A. T., &
McGlaughlin, P. C. (2017). Military children’s difficulty with reintegration after
deployment: A relational turbulence model perspective. Journal of Family Psychology,
31(5), 542.
Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental
experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42
(5), 849.
Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsd—ttir, S., … von
Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth
development programs, and community contributions of fifth grade adolescents:
Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71.
Lerner, R. M., Alberts, A. E., Jelicic, H., & Smith, L. M. (2006). Young people are
resources to be developed: Promoting positive youth development through adult-
youth relations and community assets. Mobilizing adults for positive youth development
(pp. 19–39). Boston, MA: Springer.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E. P., & Geldhof, G. J. (2015). Positive youth
development and relational developmental systems. In W. F. Overton, &
P. C. Molenaar (Eds.), Theory and method. Volume 1 of the handbook of child
psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 607–651). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Editor-in-chief: R. M. Lerner.
MacDermid Wadsworth, S., Bailey, K. M., & Coppola, E. C. (2017). US military children
and the wartime deployments of family members. Child Development Perspectives, 11
(1), 23–28.
Marek, L., Hollingsworth, W. G., D’Aniello, C., O’Rourke, K., Brock, D., Moore, L., &
Wiles, B. (2014). Returning home: What we know about the reintegration of deployed
service members into their families and communities. NCFR Report Magazine.
Marek, L. I., O’Rourke, K., & Moore, L. (2013). OSD-DOD summer camps: Building
resiliency in military youth. Retrieved from. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech. http://4h
militarypartnerships.org/militaryfamily/dod_usda/final_camp_report_2013_marek.
doc.
Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child
Development, 85(1), 6–20.
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder, &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–78). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Milburn, N. G., & Lightfoot, M. (2013). Adolescents in wartime U.S. military families: A
developmental perspective on challenges and resources. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review, 16(3), 266–277.
Mitra, D. L. (2004). The significance of students: can increasing" student voice" in schools
lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106, 651–688.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Strengthening the
military family readiness system for a changing American society. National Academies
Press.
National Research Council & Institute for Medicine. (2002). Community programs to
promote youth development. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Peterson, N. A., Peterson, C. H., Agre, L., Christens, B. D., & Morton, C. M. (2011).
Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth
in an urban community context. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(5), 592–605.
Pittman, K. J., Irby, M., Tolman, J., Yohalem, N., & Ferber, T. (2011). Preventing problems,
promoting development, encouraging engagement. Washington, DC: Forum for Youth
Investment.
10
Evaluation and Program Planning 86 (2021) 101915
Real, L. A., & Harlin, J. F. (2006). Development of youth leadership life skills of Texas
youth as San Antonio livestock exposition school tour guides. Journal of Leadership
Education, 5(1), 39–53.
Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy
adolescents: Syn- thesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8, 423–459.
Rutherford, T. A., Townsend, C. D., Briers, G. E., Cummins, R., & Conrad, C. R. (2002).
Leadership self-perceptions of WLC participants. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43
(2), 22–33.
Syvertsen, A. K., Wray-Lake, L., & Metzger, A. (2015). Youth civic and character measures
toolkit. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Tirrell, J. M., Dowling, E. M., Gansert, P., Buckingham, M., Wong, C. A., Suzuki, S., …
Lerner, R. M. (2020). Toward a measure for assessing features of effective youth
development programs: Contextual safety and the “Big Three” components of
positive youth development programs in Rwanda. Child & Youth Care Forum, 49(2),
201–222.
Wilson, S. R., Wilkum, K., Chernichky, S. M., MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M., &
Broniarczyk, K. M. (2011). Passport toward success: Description and evaluation of a
program designed to help children and families reconnect after a military
deployment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(3), 223–249.
Kayla Weston is a recent Ph.D. graduate from Clemson University’s International Family
and Community Studies program. Prior to enrolling in the doctorate program, she earned
her M.S. in Youth Development Leadership at Clemson. While in the M.S. program, Kayla
began work as a Clemson research assistant for a Boys and Girls Clubs of America program
evaluation. Kayla is also a veteran naval officer, having served eight years on active duty
after receiving her B.S. in English from the U.S. Naval Academy.
Barry A. Garst, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Youth Development Leadership at
Clemson University and the former director of program development and research
application with the American Camp Association. His applied research focuses on critical
and emerging issues faced by out-of-school time youth program providers, with an
emphasis on the needs and concerns of parents. He also investigates pathways for youth
development professionalism. www.garstostlab.com.
Dr. Ed Bowers is an Associate Professor of Youth Development Leadership at Clemson
University. He received both B.S. and M.Ed. degrees from the University of Notre Dame
and a Ph.D. in Applied Developmental and Educational Psychology from Boston College.
Dr. Bowers’ primary research interest is on the influence of non-parental social supports (e.
g., mentors, youth leaders, coaches, teachers, older peers) in promoting healthy and
positive development in young people. Through this research agenda, Dr. Bowers has
collaborated with researchers and practitioners to design, implement, and evaluate
research-based programs and materials in diverse school- and community-based settings
across the country.
Dr. William Quinn serves as Professor and Coordinator of Youth Development Programs
including the M.S. Youth Development Leadership program. His research interest is in
family interaction to promote child and adolescent well-being and positive family func­
tioning. He has participated on multiple studies and published numerous refereed journal
articles examining family intervention programs and outcomes. Dr. Quinn also serves as
Executive Director of Families4Change, Inc., a non-profit organization that sponsors the
evidence-based best practice program – the Family Solutions Program.