An Empirical Investigation of Co-Production Interventions for Involuntary Youth

An Empirical Investigation of Co-Production Interventions for Involuntary Youth

Abstract

Purpose: A special challenge in working with involuntary youth or those mandated to receive services is securing their engagement and active participation in services. Leaders are experimenting with co-production theory and practice to address this challenge. Co-production is a framework and set of empowerment practices which enable staff and clients to collaborate on projects that enhance organizational capacities and improve communities (Cahn, 2004). Proponents seek to enlist active client participation through opportunities for youth to be “resources”, “contributors” and “change agents”. For involuntary youth, voluntary or semi-voluntary interventions are incorporated within programs which emphasize compliance. This study examines co-production interventions for involuntary youth, using the experiences of child welfare and juvenile justice involved youth and staff in two small upstate NY private agency sites. The goal was to better understand key components, constructs and processes associated with co-production and its relationship to levels of youth engagement.

Method: A descriptive, exploratory case study using qualitative data was employed to assess a theoretically-driven proposed framework for co-production interventions. Interview data from 25 youth and adult participants were collected. A purposive sampling of youth participants who had successfully completed the project was employed in order to gain an understanding of micro-level processes associated with youth engagement. Focus group data was analyzed to corroborate interview findings. Template analysis (King, 1998) was used to match empirically observed events with theoretically predicted events. Data were categorized by deductive methods, first using the categories in the proposed framework to code information. Grounded inductive analyses followed. Cross-site and within-site comparisons were used to elucidate micro-level constructs and their inter-relationships.

Results: Findings reveal a range of levels of youth engagement in co-production interventions. For some, engagement morphed from involuntary to semi-voluntary, with youth exhibiting emotional and cognitive engagement over time. Changes in youth engagement appear to be related to specific empowerment and collaboration-related practices and strategies. Of note was the importance of empowerment-oriented intake strategies and group practices. These strategies created parental buy-in and an environment of safety for youth so risk taking and experimentation could occur. Autonomy-related empowerment strategies that foster youth voice and choice in project participation and strategies that create informal, individualized leadership opportunities appear to be related to higher levels of staff/youth collaboration and engagement. Different types of co-production interventions found in the pilot sites emphasize unique mixes of collaboration and empowerment strategies and thus, different pathways to youth engagement. Evidence appears to show that mixes of intervention strategies matter in effecting changes in youth engagement over time.

Conclusions and Implications: By explicating and making operational co-production, the interventions are now made more easily understood for social workers who may seek to use the practices described to help engage involuntary youth. Policy recommendations are also offered, to assist in creating an environmental context conducive to co-production. With the establishment of empirically grounded detailed logic models and hypothetical but grounded propositions linking intervention processes to youth engagement, a future research agenda for co-production is now provided.