From Strategy to Impact: How Young People Create Social and Environmental Change Through Youth Service Programs

Abstract

Young people have a desire to meaningfully contribute to their communities and create lasting impact. While youth service programs aim to support this goal, research often emphasizes youth development over social and environmental outcomes. This study addresses this gap by analyzing six youth service programs run by three national Canadian non-profits. Using a youth-led social framework, we examine the impact strategies young participants employed to implement service projects. Our findings highlight how youth use diverse strategies to achieve social and environmental outcomes, and we propose adjustments to the existing framework to better capture youth contributions. This research broadens the understanding of youth impact, emphasizing that young people are not only beneficiaries of service but also agents of meaningful change.

1. Introduction

Young people often express a desire to make a difference in their communities with hopes that impact will be lasting and will benefit future generations (Dougherty et al., 2020; Lawford & Ramey, 2015; Lawford & Shulman, 2024). One of the ways that young people can contribute to their communities is through youth service programs. Youth service is a structured period of substantial engagement and contribution to the local, national, or world community, recognized and valued by society, usually with minimal or no monetary contribution to the participants (Mattero & Campbell-Patton, 2009). Generally, these programs are structured programs run by adult-led organizations. Alongside contribution, the service projects may also include skills training, mentorship, or support to young participants, as well as providing opportunities for them to reflect on their service experience (Blanchet-Cohen et al., 2010; Canada Service Corps, 2024; Celio et al., 2011; Khanna et al., 2014).

Despite the primary focus of youth service programs being a contribution to community, evaluations tend to focus on individual-level outcomes, such as skills and attitudes young people gained through their participation, rather than measuring the positive social impact that young people have as a result of their involvement (Checkoway & Aldana, 2013; Pluim & Jorgenson, 2012; Powell & Bratović, 2007; Tiessen & Heron, 2012). This emphasis overlooks how youth move from developing awareness of social issues to taking action, an important progression captured in the concept of critical consciousness, which emphasizes reflection, motivation, and action as key components of social engagement (Tyler et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2011). Understanding community- and system-level changes resulting from youth-led service is therefore a key gap in the literature (Ho et al., 2015; Ramey, 2013; Riemer et al., 2014).

For this study, we define social impact as the result of a deliberate intervention by an individual, community, or organization aimed at creating a positive effect on social, environmental, and economic well-being (Feor et al., 2023). While limited, existing research suggests that youth service projects may strengthen the capacity of the civil society organizations, including increasing staff support and general organizational functioning (Filges et al., 2022; Ramey, 2013; Roehlkepartain, 2007). In a study outlining the impacts of Katimavik, a well-known national Canadian youth service program, most community partners reported that without involvement in Katimavik, their projects would have either not have moved forward or would have been more limited in scope. They also felt the program contributed to achieving their organizational goals and enhancing their overall capacity (R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd., 2006).

Researchers have long noted the challenges of measuring the impact of youth service, given the various service opportunities and the diverse ways young people participate and contribute (Lovelle et al., 2016; McLellan & Youniss, 2003). In a review of 52 of the most innovative AmeriCorps programs, service activity outcomes included providing clothing, food, referrals, and transportation to young clients; empowering adult and child survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault crimes; providing technology instruction to improve computer literacy; mobilizing local volunteers; matching young people with mentors; contributing to land- and water-based conservation projects; and providing environmental leadership training for students, energy education, and basic weatherization to low-income households (America’s Service Commissions and Innovations in Civic Participation, 2014). As such, any social impact measurement assessment that aims to measure the social and environmental impact of youth service programs must account for the broad scope of these activities.

In this paper, we aim to better understand the social impact young participants have through youth service programs. We examine the strategies used and impact resulting from young people and community organizations carrying out their service projects. We focus on six youth service programs delivered by three national Canadian organizations. The study is guided by the following research questions: What impact strategies were used in the youth service projects carried out by young participants and community organizations, and what types of social impact resulted from these youth-led service projects?

To answer these questions, we draw on a youth-led social change framework initially developed by Gauthier (2003) and later adapted by Helferty and Clarke (2009), Clarke and Dougherty (2010), and Ho et al. (2015). We propose modifications to this framework to better capture the diverse ways in which young people make social impact through youth service programs.

Gauthier (2003) developed a typology of a young person’s degree of involvement in social impact. The categories in this framework are as follows: (1) socialization through group involvement or through symbolic participation in ‘mock’ decision-making; (2) influence through protests, through being a representative in decision-making bodies, or through having a youth advisory body; and (3) power through partnerships (Helferty & Clarke, 2009). Helferty and Clarke (2009) adapted that typology to consider types of social change tactics used by students. They identified eight types of student-led initiatives, which they then categorized using Gauthier’s framework. Clarke and Dougherty (2010) then used this typology to examine types of strategies that youth-led organizations in Canada have put into practice.

Gauthier’s categories of socialization and influence were found to be more accessible strategies for youth-led organizations aiming to drive social change, due to their capacity for mass mobilization, low-paid staff, and use of social media. However, while these approaches are important components of a broader strategy, they may be more time-consuming and less directly effective in addressing social issues (Clarke & Dougherty, 2010). Most recently, Ho et al. (2015) expanded this framework and used a media analysis to study the social, environmental, and economic impact young people had in Canada from 1978 to 2012.

This latest version of the framework outlines four strategies: socialization, influence, partnerships, and power. Socialization focuses on raising awareness about social problems, whether at the individual, within communities or organizations, or on a national or international scale. Influence involves encouraging individuals, communities, or decision-makers to take action in response to the issue. Partnerships emphasize direct impact through mutually beneficial cooperation, ranging from individual collaborations to large-scale organizational or international efforts. Finally, power refers to directly addressing social problems through individual, community, or systemic actions. Ho et al. (2015)’s results found a significant relationship between youth impact strategies and the types of impact achieved. For example, influence is closely linked to community- and national-level impacts, while power strategies tend to result in community-scale or broader effects. Political engagement, especially when young people participate within formal systems, such as in advisory roles, appears particularly effective at driving systemic change. However, this relationship is complex and likely influenced by contextual factors.

For the purpose of this research, we will use the impact strategies from this framework to measure the social impact of youth service programs. Understanding the impact strategies used by young people in the course of their service projects will offer insights into the kind of social impact that takes place during these programs.

2. Methods

2.1. Program Overview

On 16 January 2018, the Government of Canada launched the Canada Service Corps funding program (Office of the Prime Minister, 2018). According to the Government of Canada website, the Canada Service Corps is a funding program that funds volunteer service placements for Canadian young people with the aim of promoting civic engagement among youth aged 15 to 30 by empowering them to engage in service with the purpose of giving back to their communities (Canada Service Corps, 2024). Service placements can be either full-time, meaning they are 30 h per week for a minimum of three consecutive months, or flexible, meaning 120 h of service are completed over a twelve-month period (Canada Service Corps, 2024). According to the Government of Canada, 40,000 service placements had taken place since 2018 (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2025).

For this study we interviewed young people and community partners from the youth service programs of three Canadian organizations: YMCA of Greater Toronto, Ocean Wise, and Canadian Wildlife Federation, which are funded by the Canada Service Corps. These three organizations were running a total of six different youth service programs during the timeframe of this study.

These six programs took place in diverse communities across Canada, including large metropolitan cities, mid-sized urban centers, and smaller regional or semi-rural communities (Castillo Cifuentes et al., 2022c, 2022b). While all programs focused on youth ages 15 to 30, each defined their target group slightly differently. The specific age ranges used were 15 to 30 years old, 19 to 30 years old, 15 to 18 years old, 18 to 30 years old, 18 to 30 years old, and 15 to 18 years old (Canadian Wildlife Federation, n.d.-a, n.d.-b; Ocean Wise, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c; YMCA of Greater Toronto, n.d.-a).

In all but one of the programs, young people carried out their service project in collaboration with a community organization. In one of Ocean Wise’s programs, the service project could be carried out in partnership with a community partner or by the young person individually (Ocean Wise, n.d.-b). The selection process for community partners varied from program to program, with most partners being selected by the staff team of the organization running the program (Canadian Wildlife Federation, n.d.-a; Ocean Wise, n.d.-a, n.d.-c), while some programs supported the young participants in choosing an appropriate community partner on their own based on the needs they had identified as they developed their projects (Castillo Cifuentes et al., 2022c).

The programs have a variety of different structures, but most importantly, they all include young people delivering a service project with the aim of achieving a social impact. The intended social impact of young people’s projects varies across organizations, reflecting the specific mission and goals of the organization. Ocean Wise’s programs aimed to have a positive impact on ocean conservation (Castillo Cifuentes et al., 2022a), the Canadian Wildlife Federation programs aimed to have an impact on nature conservation (Castillo Cifuentes et al., 2022b), and the YMCA of Greater Toronto program aimed to have a positive social impact in their local communities (Castillo Cifuentes et al., 2022c). Additional activities that wrap around the service projects vary from program to program but include orientation activities, monthly outdoor excursions, skill-building workshops, speaker series, discussions, and reflections (Ocean Wise, n.d.-b, n.d.-c; YMCA of Greater Toronto, n.d.-b).

2.2. Data Collection

The data collection focused on conducting semi-structured interviews with both the staff of community partners as well as with young participants involved in one of the six youth service programs. Two semi-structured interview guides were developed: one for the staff of community partners and one for young participants. The interviews aimed to capture detailed information regarding the projects carried out, the impact these projects had on the community partners, local communities, and social and environmental issues, as well as the different forms of collaboration that took place between community partners and young participants. Having the perspectives from both the staff of community partners and young people offers complementary views on how collaboration occurs during service projects. While youth provide insights into their experience, challenges, and the strategies used to make an impact, staff can contextualize these efforts within the broader organization.

2.3. Participant Selection

Participants were selected for interviews based on having filled out a post-program survey sent to them by the organization that had led their program. In that survey, they indicated their willingness to participate in an interview. A selected group was contacted to be interviewed following the criteria below to ensure diverse representation:

-

For young participants, diversity characteristics such as age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, race, and education;

-

For organizations, diversity in type of organization, such as size, social or environmental issue addressed, or population targeted or represented;

-

Regional diversity in provinces and in urban vs. rural;

-

Diversity in the type of project carried out;

-

Diversity in the type of results achieved.

After selecting participants for the initial rounds of interviews, low response rates led to extending the invitation to all the participants that expressed interest in participating in the interviews (see

Table 1. Interview number and response rates.

	Total No of Invitations Sent Out	Total No of Interviews Completed	Response Rates
Community partners	44	27	61%
Young participants	173	73	42%

for further detail). All interviews were conducted via Zoom. Once the interviews were completed, the recording was sent to an external company to be transcribed.

Participants were contacted via email by the research team to schedule a time for a virtual interview. The email contained an ethics information letter and a link to schedule their interview through the scheduling software Acuity. A consent form was integrated into Acuity, which participants completed before scheduling an interview. If the young participant was less than 18 years old and located in Quebec or less than 16 years old in the rest of Canada, their parents were asked to complete a parent/guardian consent form prior to a young person participating in the interview.

The interviews focused on gathering background information about the organization and the young participants, expectations and planning related to the projects carried out, experience during project development and implementation, impact of the projects, intergenerational collaboration, and overall reflections following participation in the programs.

2.4. Operationalization of Impact Strategies

All 100 interviews were manually coded by two coders using NVivo software. Deductively coding from the interviews using the youth-led change framework was selected as an appropriate method to answer the research question. This allowed the data to be systematically categorized into predefined strategies, ensuring alignment with existing theoretical constructs while evaluating their relevance to the context (Fereday et al., 2006).

Deductive Coding—Strategies

Table 2. Adapted from Ho et al. (2015) strategy definitions.

Strategy	Definition
Socialization	Synonymous with awareness-raising, making someone care about or aware of the social issue, whether that is through educational or marketing campaigns or actions that generate public discussion or will about an issue that was not initially in public view.
Influence	Indirectly influencing individuals, constituencies, organizations, communities, decision makers, broad populations, or sectors to take action in addressing the social problem
Power	Directly impacting the social problem by being or becoming the decision maker/authority who can take direct action.
Partnership	Directly impact the social problem through mutually beneficial cooperation with individuals, constituencies, organizations, communities, decision makers, broad populations, or sectors.
Socialization	Synonymous with awareness-raising, making someone care about or aware of the social issue, whether that is through educational or marketing campaigns or actions that generate public discussion or will about an issue that was not initially in public view.

shows the framework used to complete the deductive coding was the one proposed by Ho et al. (2015).

However, during the coding of interviews, we identified a strategy that is not captured by the existing categories in the framework. We refer to this strategy as direct impact, which we define as the instances where young people are able to directly impact the social problem through individual or communal action. Examples of direct impact might include activities, such as a beach clean-up, where young people clean up waste themselves, or building a trail in a park, where the young people build a trail that will then be used by the public. We argue that it is important to distinguish direct impact and the category power described by Ho et al. (2015). While both involve engagement in social change, direct impact does not necessarily involve decision-making authority. For example, they might be participating in picking up waste without having chosen the activity or designed the project. Therefore, while they are directly contributing to social impact, they are not necessarily exercising power in the sense of influencing decisions. Thus, it is important to differentiate direct action from power.

We also propose differentiating these two categories further by changing the strategy currently labeled power to systems change. This can be defined as the implementation of new products, processes, or programs that significantly alter the core routines, distribution of resources and authority, or underlying beliefs within the social system where the innovation takes place (Westley & Antadze, n.d.). In other words, the change achieved is embedded within the system or an institution and will therefore be long-lasting. This shift emphasizes the transformative impact rather than focusing solely on decision-making authority, ensuring the framework better reflects the broader effects of systemic change. For young people this kind of change necessitates that some sort of cooperative partnership with adult decision-makers be included as part of the systemic change strategy. Therefore, the partnership strategy will be embedded into the systems change strategy in the proposed revised strategy definitions.

Given these changes, we propose the following revised coding framework on

Table 3. Proposed revised strategy definitions.

Strategy	Definition
Direct Impact	Directly impacting the social problem through individual or communal action. Examples of direct impact include beach clean-up, where young people clean up waste themselves, or building a trail in a park, where the young people build a trail that will then be used by the public.
Socialization	Synonymous with awareness-raising, making someone care about or aware of the social issue, whether that is through educational or marketing campaigns or actions that generate public discussion about an issue that was not initially in public view.
Influence	Influencing individuals, constituencies, organizations, communities, decision makers, broad populations, or sectors to take action in addressing the social problem. Examples include encouraging individuals to sign a petition, sharing a report that includes recommendations with decision-makers, a protest being held during an event where decision-makers will be present, or being part of a youth advisory council.
Systems change	Changing the basic routines, resources, and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system in such a way that the desired change is institutionalized and as such will be long-lasting. For young people system change occurs through mutually beneficial cooperation with individuals, constituencies, organizations, communities, decision makers, broad populations, or sectors. Examples of system change include a law being passed, a policy being adopted, or some other institutionalized or long-lasting change occurring.

:

In addition to deductive coding, an inductive approach was integrated to capture themes not covered by the existing framework. This hybrid method ensured that the analysis was both grounded in theory and responsive to the insights from the data (Fereday et al., 2006). Based on themes the coders found relevant, these codes were as follows:

-

Unsure of impact;

-

No impact;

-

Impact on young participants (community partners only).

3. Results

3.1. Youth—Impact Strategies

First, we discuss the results from the young participant interviews. We will start with their answers regarding the strategies they used to work to achieve social impact.

Table 4. Frequency of impact strategies mentioned by young participants.

Strategy	Total
Direct Impact	33
Socialization	53
Influence	12
Unsure of impact or no impact	9
Systems Change	1

shows that socialization was the primary strategy used by young participants in their projects, either in part or in full. In other words, these youth service projects raised awareness and encouraged someone to care about or become aware of the social issue. As one young participant explained, “I think just having a list of species, having that available and created helps a little bit with other organizations or gardening centers be like ‘oh yeah, I guess that is invasive; we shouldn’t sell those things.’” Another young participant described their socialization strategy this way: “With the public service announcement for the Opioid Crisis…I think it really helped make people reflect on mostly how they interact with people suffering from addictions can make an impact on them helping themselves later on.” Lastly, another young participant described their socialization strategy this way: “I think…having the posters up for people to read is a huge thing…I think a lot of people will find the project helpful towards considering what they should do next in terms of their impact to sustainability and to plastic awareness.”

The second most common strategy used was direct impact, defined as directly impacting the social problem through individual or communal action. One young person explained, “the goal was to divert single use masks away and replace them with reusable masks, so hopefully that was achieved through handing out these masks.” Another young participant shared, “we did community gardening, a lot of urban gardening. We were involved in trail maintenance. We did a clean-up. And those are the kind of things that we did in the local area. So, I think we had a pretty positive effect in the local area.”

The strategy of influence was mentioned 12 times by young participants. This strategy involves influencing individuals, constituencies, organizations, communities, decision makers, broad populations, or sectors to take action in addressing the social problem. One participant explained, “[We carried out a] research project on what is the blue economy, how can parks use it, how [they] should it use it, and then [we] presented it to them at the end… So, I think that’s where the project really made an impact, we made a pretty big stand [that] we need to be involved with the strategy.” Another young participant shared, “[I] left lesson plans behind so those are able to be run again. And I also trained [two interns who came after me] on how to run a few of the workshops before I left.”

Lastly, only one young participant indicated they used a systems change strategy. This means they aimed to institutionalize change by collaborating with decision-makers.

3.2. Youth—Unsure of Impact or No Impact

It is important to note that some young participants reported that they did not achieve any impact as a result of their youth service project or that they were unsure of their impact.

Unsure of impact was mentioned nine times. In some cases, participants felt that any potential impact may occur down the road but was not something that could be measured so soon after the project. Others indicated that they were unsure of the impact achieved because it was not measured or shared with the young participants. As one participant reflected, “it’s hard for me to say because I don’t know how many people are engaging with the list that we made, what they did with it besides put it on the website, I don’t know if they made pamphlets with it. So, I’m not too sure [of the impact achieved].”

3.3. Community Organizations—Impact Strategies

Next, we will discuss the results from the interviews with the staff of the community organizations who partnered with the young participants on their youth service projects.

Table 5. Frequency of impact strategies used by community organizations.

Strategy	Total
Direct Impact	17
Socialization	13
Influence	6
Unsure of impact or no impact	2
Systems Change	0

shows that the most common strategy used was direct impact, mentioned seventeen times. Direct impact can be defined as directly impacting the social problem through individual or communal action. One respondent from a community organization described, “Probably if we hadn’t had them do it that meadow would have stayed just a weedy mess for another year…yeah so that project probably would have not happened.” Another respondent explained, “So that in itself would be a benefit to the environment and the community just to have cleaner beaches, cleaner streams, and certain areas that were filled with litter and trash that got cleaned up thanks to them.” Lastly, a respondent described direct impact this way: “[the project] allowed us to get two mileage junction posts up, which was critical for us. They were the last two posts that needed to go up. They were the posts that were the furthest in, so it was difficult for [us] to get the equipment in, and we were very, very appreciative to have their help.”

A close second was the socialization strategy, mentioned thirteen times by community organizations. As one respondent explained, “I think it increased awareness, I think it showcases the animals that we had in the shelter in a very different and professional manner…so if I look at the analytics for Facebook, I could definitely see a change in those analytics.” Another respondent described, “we did develop an outreach program directly related to this work. It was not a program we had set up before, it reached over 1000 students, and was [developed by] a past intern. They developed it and then worked with new interns that were part of the [youth service project].”

The third most common strategy used was influence, with six community organizations mentioning this as a strategy that was used. Specifically, the projects they collaborated on with the young participants involved influencing individuals, constituencies, organizations, communities, decision makers, broad populations, or sectors to take action in addressing the social problem. One respondent described the young participants influence on the community organization itself this way. “In regards to social environmental issues. I think that they brought with them, a new perspective that did help us to kind of invigorate some of our, our social policies and just see from a young perspective, some of the, some of the things that young people were very passionate about, and how to change.”

Lastly, none of the community organization respondents indicated that the youth service projects used a system change strategy.

3.4. Community Organizations—Impact on Young Participants

Interestingly, despite the questions in the interview being focused on the social and environmental impact of the youth service projects and not on the skills gained by the young participants, thirteen of the community organization respondents focused their responses on the positive benefits received by young participants because of their participation in the projects. As one respondent described, “I think if you look at the impact of the kids, it has obviously impacted their lives, getting involved, looking at shelter animals, learning about sheltering.” And another described, “I would say that the interns themselves gained quite a bit of knowledge during their summer here.” Lastly, another respondent explained it this way: “we really enjoy mentoring young people, we think it’s so important to give them these types of opportunities to learn about the environmental field, figure out what types of career they might want to get into, and so we really enjoyed that, and we think that we’re able to give these participants pretty wide variety of skills during their short few months with us.”

3.5. Community Organizations—Unsure of Impact or No Impact

Two of the community organizations indicated that the youth service projects they partnered on had no impact, and five were unsure of the impact the youth service projects had. As one respondent described, “I’m honestly not sure if it had an impact yet just because we don’t have the products out there yet, that is something we are working on.” Another respondent echoed this sentiment indicating that the project was too new to really know what the impact would be.

4. Discussion

To summarize, our study reveals that while youth service programs employ diverse strategies to achieve social impact, the majority of young participants rely on socialization strategies focused on raising awareness and encouraging engagement with social or environmental issues. Influence and systems change strategies, linked to long-term and systemic transformation, are rarely employed. Community organizations also emphasized the skills and personal development benefits for young participants, even though the main focus of the interviews was on social and environmental impact.

This study used an existing framework with adjustments (Clarke & Dougherty, 2010; Gauthier, 2003; Helferty & Clarke, 2009; Ho et al., 2015) to document the strategies that occur through youth service programs. To our knowledge this framework has not been used in this context before.

The results of our study build on the results from the previous studies that have used this framework in different contexts to better understand youth-led social impact. Namely, as was outlined by Clarke and Dougherty (2010), the tactics used by the two organizations examined in that article were socialization and influence rather than system change, or what was called power in that study. Given that direct impact was not a category used in that study, these results are in line with what we found in our study. Similarly, Helferty and Clarke (2009) found that the most common type of student-led strategy was socialization.

Importantly, in Ho et al. (2015), a statistically significant relationship was found between the strategy used and impact achieved. As the authors explained, influence and power (or what we call systems change) are the most impactful strategies that young people can use (Ho et al., 2015). While Ho et al. (2015) highlight the correlation between strategy and impact, their findings also suggest that strategy alone does not guarantee results. Contextual and situational factors, such as institutional receptiveness, organizational support, or political climate, may mediate or constrain whether a strategy actually leads to change. In our study, we observed alignment between the strategies used and the kinds of impact achieved, but we did not collect sufficient data to determine a direct causal relationship. Future research could examine these mechanisms in more detail to better understand how and under what conditions youth strategies result in sustained impact. Clarifying this connection would help both youth and program designers choose strategies that are not only ambitious but also feasible within their context.

Given that Helferty and Clarke (2009), Clarke and Dougherty (2010), and our study all found that young people frequently use socialization as an impact strategy, this suggests that they may not be using the strategies that would most likely lead to broader social impact. Other research supports this, including Riemer et al. (2014), who emphasize the value of systemic approaches that involve examining root causes and implementing long-term solutions. These findings align with critiques of youth service programs, which often encourage participation in community-based activities rather than in efforts that address deeper structural or political issues. For example, scholars have noted a disconnect between the complex, systemic issues that young people care about and the more individual or localized actions they tend to engage in (Hosang, 2003; Mclean et al., 2017).

The importance of ensuring that the work young people do in the context of youth service programs meets real needs and that young people are given the opportunity to take meaningful action is commonly discussed in the literature (ESDC Innovation Lab, 2016; Hastings et al., 2010; Lakin & Mahoney, 2006; Myrah, 2009; Riemer et al., 2014; Seider et al., 2012; Sutherland et al., 2006; Thibault et al., 2007). Young people seeing the positive impacts of their engagement improve their overall engagement in youth programs (Riemer et al., 2014).

Another interesting finding in our study was how many of the community organization respondents, despite not being asked about the skills young people gained through the youth service projects, focused on the outcomes for young participants in their responses. This reinforces what the existing research indicates, that the focus of youth service programs tends to be on young people gaining skills and attitudes through their participation rather than on the positive social impact that young people achieve as a result of their involvement, despite social impact being a stated goal of programs such as these (Pluim & Jorgenson, 2012; Powell & Bratović, 2007; Tiessen & Heron, 2012). Work remains to be done to change this emphasis and assumption that continues to be made by the adults who lead and collaborate in youth service programs.

These findings also speak to the need to integrate a deeper understanding of critical consciousness within youth service programming. As Watts et al. (2011) reflect, it is awareness and critical examination of social realities, motivation to drive the effect of change, and action and engagement in efforts to transform those realities. Opportunities for reflection on social impact are not only vital for youth learning but also help young people more clearly see their contributions to broader change. Embedding this framework in youth service efforts may help shift attention from personal gains to the societal transformation youth are striving toward.

The findings of this study suggest that youth service programs primarily support young people in engaging in strategies that align with the earlier stages of critical consciousness—particularly reflection and, to a lesser extent, motivation. Projects that used socialization and influence strategies reflect young participants’ growing awareness of social issues and their desire to inspire change in others. However, fewer examples of direct action and almost no instances of systems change suggest that programs may not yet fully support youth in moving toward sustained and transformative action.

4.1. Theoretical Contributions, Limitations, and Future Directions

This paper contributes to the literature around youth-led social impact by providing a detailed analysis of the strategies young people employ when they participate in youth service programs, specifically through the lens of an updated youth-led change framework. It adds to the existing body of knowledge by proposing four types of strategies most commonly used by young participants: socialization, direct impact, influence, and systems change. The findings suggest a gap between strategies young people to use—socialization and direct impact—and those most likely to create long-term, systemic change, as suggested by prior research (e.g., Ho et al., 2015). The study reveals critical insights into the tension between youth service programs’ stated goals of achieving social impact and their emphasis on youth skill development, evidenced by community partners’ responses prioritizing participant growth and benefit over broader social outcomes.

4.2. Recommendations for Young Participants in Youth Service Programs

Given the results of our study and the discussion outlined above, we recommend that young participants in youth service programs implement the following recommendations:

-

Use influence and system change as strategies, given that these strategies are more likely to lead to social impact.

-

Remember that participating in a youth service program is both about learning, but also, importantly, it is about having an impact.

-

If you are using direct impact and socialization strategies, think about how they are linked to impact. Even if influence and system change are not the strategies you use right now, consider how you might use these strategies in future.

4.3. Recommendations for Those Designing and Leading Youth Service Programs

Given the results of our study and the discussion outlined above, we recommend that those who are designing and leading youth service programs consider implementing the following recommendations:

-

Ensure that youth service programs are designed and led with the stated goal of achieving social impact at the center rather than overemphasizing the skills and attitudes that young people gain through their participation.

-

Encourage young participants to use influence and systems change as strategies, given that these strategies are not as frequently used and that they are more likely to lead to social impact.

-

Ensure that youth service programs integrate time for reflection about how strategies are linked to impact. Even if influence and systems change are not being used as strategies, how young people might use these strategies in future should be discussed and reflected upon, especially as these approaches may not provide immediate, visible impact.

5. Conclusions

Young people have a desire to make a difference. Youth service programs provide an important opportunity for young people to do just that. Despite positive social impact being a stated goal of these programs, the strategies that are more likely to lead to young people having a social impact, namely influence and system change, are not the ones that are most often used by young people who take part in these programs. To address the social and environmental challenges we face, it is important that youth service programs move beyond focusing mainly on direct impact and socialization and consider adopting influence and systems change strategies.

The characteristics of these youth service programs are also relevant, as they provide a unique context for understanding the social impacts achieved and strategies employed by young participants. The diversity in the program missions, variation in age range, and opportunities to partner with community organizations offer critical insight into the different ways young people develop and implement strategies to achieve social impact.

While prior research has demonstrated a significant relationship between strategy and impact, the conditions that moderate or mediate young people’s use of these strategies remain underexplored. For example, does the length of the program or age of the participants influence the strategies? Future research direction might therefore examine these contextual factors to better understand how and when different strategies are employed effectively. Future studies could also consider aligning interviews with both youth and adult participants to assess the degree of agreement or divergence in their perceptions of impact and collaboration. Additionally, researchers could move beyond perceptions to measure the actual social impact of youth service initiatives.

Lastly, while we distinguish between short-term outcomes and longer-term systemic change, further conceptual clarity is needed regarding the nature and sustainability of impact. Specifically, future research could examine whether and how youth-led impact is sustained over time, and whether sustained impact necessarily reflects a greater degree of institutionalization or systems change.