































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 2, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Jera E. Niewoehner-Green, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University 2120 Fyffe Rd., Columbus, OH 43210, 

niewoehner-green.1@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-1956 
2. Amanda M. Bowling, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University 2120 Fyffe Rd., Columbus, OH 43210, 

bowling.175@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2526-725X   
3. Kameron Rinehart, Assistant Professor, Austin Peay State University Henry St. Clarksville, TN 37040, rinehartk@apsu.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4510-6306   
 

28 

 

Engaging Youth in Food Systems Issues: Approaches to Youth 
Development and Empowerment 

 
J. E. Niewoehner-Green1, A. M. Bowling2, K. Rinehart3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: September 9, 2024 
Accepted: April 9, 2025 
Published: April 30, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
food security; youth community 
engagement; SDG 2: Zero hunger   

Abstract 
Food systems are considered social-ecological systems, wherein people 
are interconnected to the social and natural environment. Issues that 
arise in food systems are inherently complex and require critical 
awareness of production, access, consumption, and nutrition. Everyone 
is an actor in the food system, including youth, and encouraging them to 
become problem-solvers, change agents, and leaders can support a more 
sustainable food system. To explore how youth are engaging in food 
systems issues, we interviewed program leaders who include food system 
topics in their curricula to understand if and how they are empowering 
youth to engage and address related challenges. Through a collective case 
study, we identified one convergent theme related to the role of PYD in 
programming. However, there was more case divergence wherein three 
themes describe how intentional empowerment approaches support 
youth development, how youth are viewed and supported as leaders, and 
in what ways programs are educating about food systems issues. 
Recommendations include moving past community service to community 
engagement in food systems issues and conducting research on youth’s 
perceived ability to address these issues.  

 

mailto:niewoehner-green.1@osu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-1956
mailto:bowling.175@osu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2526-725X
mailto:rinehartk@apsu.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4510-6306


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  29 
 

Introduction 
 
Food systems are considered a social-ecological system that are comprised of activities such as 
agricultural and food production, processing and packaging, distribution and retail, and 
consumption (Berkes et al., 2003; Ericksen, 2008). Issues relating to this system include the 
governance and economics of food production, food waste, sustainability, and the impact of 
food on health (University of Oxford, n.d.). Everyone regardless of their connection to 
agriculture is an actor in the food system, whether they are a producer or consumer, including 
youth. Some youth practitioners consider that youth becoming problem-solvers, change agents, 
and leaders is critical for bringing forth food system changes (Kwan, 2014; USAID, n.d; Yeboah, 
2018). Despite students in the U.S., receiving less than eight hours of nutrition education per 
year (CDC, 2023), other forms of food education are increasing during school hours such as 
school gardening, cooking classes, and agricultural education. Nonformal education programs 
(e.g. 4-H, after school programs, community non-profits) may also promote healthy living and 
food literacy (Renwick & Powell, 2019; Smelkova, 2015). More recently, the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) hosted a dialogue with youth on sustainable U.S. food 
systems wherein participants emphasized the need for early childhood nutrition education, 
agricultural education, policies that helped achieve food equity, and technologies to improve 
food distribution (USDA, 2021). This dialogue indicates youth are aware of food systems issues 
and have ideas to address them. Community-based organizations and youth programs such as 
4-H can offer programming to educate and engage youth on food system issues but there is a 
dearth of literature on how such programs are doing so.  
 
The focus on food and nutrition is contextually important for our research because Ohio ranked 
44th out of 50 states in 2023 for health value, indicating that residents are less healthy and 
spend more on healthcare than in most other states (Akah et al., 2023). Further, while Ohio is 
near the national average (11.8%) of food insecurity (USDA, 2023) this translates to 1,391,290 
of residents, of which 386,430 are children (Hunger Network in Ohio n.d.). This investigation 
could help identify and disseminate key strategies which program leaders are using to engage 
and empower youth in food system issues. 
 

Conceptual/Theoretical Lens 
 
We utilized a conceptual and a theoretical lens which allowed us to contextualize the youth 
experience through positive youth development approaches and youth empowerment, while 
allowing for emergence of data through the perspective of youth program leaders. 
 
Positive Youth Development 
Positive Youth Development (PYD) is a prosocial approach that focuses on youth’s strengths 
and promotes positive outcomes through building positive relationships, providing 
opportunities to engage with their peers, families, organizations, and communities, and 
supporting psychological, emotional physical, and emotional development (Hamilton et al., 
2004). PYD programs strive to develop youth’s healthy habits such as engaging in physical 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  30 
 

activity and maintaining mental health (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). PYD programming can also 
positively influence youths’ willingness to engage in their community and complex issues. 
Christens and Zeldin (2018) assert youth community engagement can promote positive youth 
development as well as strengthen community leadership and create a self-sustaining cycle of 
participation. Additionally, PYD programs can be catalysts for youth environmental action 
where they create local changes related to food systems, community gardens, water quality, 
and urban development (Schusler, 2013).  
 
Youth Empowerment 
Empowerment can be understood as a value orientation for practical application, such as youth 
programming, as well as a theoretical model for understanding how individuals exert control 
and influence over decisions that affect their lives (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Rappaport, 
1987; Zimmerman, 2000). For youth, empowerment theory, like PYD, views them as assets and 
resources for their community rather than community problems (Holden et al., 2005). Thus, 
empowering youth through engagement in decision making and problem solving allows them 
to play meaningful roles in their communities (Charbonneau et al., 2014). Further, 
empowerment can be an important element in human development (Christens & Peterson, 
2012). Particularly, when youth perceive having influence over policies and practices in their 
social sphere and community, this can act as an important indicator for behavioral and 
developmental outcomes (Chiessi et al., 2010; Peterson et al., 2011).  
 
Empowerment is best operationalized within a context to understand the process by which 
youth become active participants around an issue. Youth empowerment research related to 
food systems and health is limited but has indicated that youth empowerment approaches for 
obesity prevention can influence attitudes and perceptions for healthy eating and food choices 
(Lewis et al., 2018; Muturi, et al., 2018). And through community gardening, supporting youth 
empowerment can improve self-esteem, sense of belonging, nutrition, food security, and 
environmental awareness (Fulford & Thompson, 2013). Thus, empowerment approaches 
connected to food system issues impacting youth can shape attitudes and influence action. 
 

Purpose and Research Questions 
 
We aimed to learn how Ohio PYD programs engage youth in activities related to the food 
system. Our central research question was: In what ways are adult practitioners empowering 
youth to address food systems issues? One sub research question refined our investigation: 
What are the opportunities and challenges for engaging youth participants in food system 
issues?  
 

Methods 
 
For this qualitative study we used a collective case design (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2018) that 
employed purposive sampling with the bounded system of out-of-school time Ohio PYD 
programs. We began this study following Stake’s (1995) more emergent approach to collective 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  31 
 

cases, however after the initial data analysis round we shifted to follow a more prescriptive 
approach to align our theoretical lens with the data analysis (Yin, 2018). We approached the 
research through a constructivist lens, where we believed people construct their own 
understanding of reality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Additionally, we bracketed our biases to allow 
for data emergence. As former PYD practitioners and participants, it was necessary to 
acknowledge how these experiences could influence our perceptions.  
 
To aid in purposively sampling youth programs, we sent a questionnaire to youth programs 
throughout Ohio. The questionnaire gathered information on the inclusion of food security, 
healthy living, and/or gardening/urban farming in their curricula, program leader information, 
and youth demographics. From the questionnaire data, we identified four types of programs: 
(a) general PYD program, (b) food security, and (c) healthy living (d) and/or gardening/urban 
farming. We purposely sampled a total of nine programs which represented multiple program 
types, youth age ranges including a collegiate organization (as the participants are considered 
to still be developing), population density areas, and program sizes and scopes (see Table 1).  
 
Table 1 
 
Description of Sampled PYD Programs (n = 9) 

Program Type Program Category 
Populatio
n Density 

Annual Organizational 
Reach 

4-H Healthy Living Urban 6,000 – 12,000 youth 
4-H Gardening/Urban Agriculture Urban 2,000 – 3,500 youth 
FFA Healthy Living Rural 400 – 500 youth 

College Organization Gardening/Urban Agriculture Rural 10 – 60 youth/community 
members 

Community Based Non-profit Food Insecurity Urban 40 – 500 youth 
Community Based Non-profit Positive Youth Development Urban 20,000 – 30,000 youth 
Community Based Non-profit Food Insecurity Rural 500 – 1,000 youth 
Community Based Non-profit Food Insecurity Rural 1,000 – 1,500 youth 
Community Based Non-profit Positive Youth Development Urban 30 – 70 youth 

 
Data were collected through one-on-one, virtual, semi-structured interviews with program 
leaders. We developed an interview protocol guided by conceptual and theoretical lenses. An 
example interview question was, “Do your programs help engage youth and address food 
insecurity issues within the community?” The interviews lasted between 34 and 79 minutes, 
were recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interview field notes were also gathered. The 
interview data served as the primary data source and field note data served as an ancillary data 
source. Additionally, two member checking interviews which followed a different interview 
protocol were conducted following an initial review of the emerging data. 
 
Data were analyzed using a three-stage coding process (Stake, 1995). We initially approached 
the data utilizing In Vivo Coding, taking words and phrases from the interview transcripts 
(Saldaña, 2021). These codes were then organized by program into emerging categories. The 
categories were examined across youth programs, then grouped into emerging themes which 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  32 
 

captured the various ways in which food systems topics were integrated into programs. 
Although this provided some insights into program structure and topics, it did not appear to 
reveal the program leader’s perspectives or approaches to youth development and 
empowerment. We undertook a second round of coding, first by reviewing the initial codes, 
then revisiting the transcripts and Zoom recordings as needed. For this round of coding, we 
intentionally used the theoretical lens and employed process coding. This approach to coding 
reflects the action-interaction occurring when persons act in pursuit of a goal or addressing a 
problem (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Saldaña, 2021). Coding in this way identified the PYD and 
empowerment activities that supported youth’s understanding and engagement in food 
systems and their community. To validate the findings, we triangulated the semi-structured 
interviews, field notes, and member checking interviews, used thick, rich descriptions, audit 
trail, peer reviews, member checks, negative case analysis, and researcher positionality 
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). 
 

Findings 
 
Within the sampled cases, case convergence emerged related to the use of PYD principles and 
practices as foundations for the youth programs. However, much of the emerging findings 
focused on how the cases diverged from each other. Cases differed in how they approached 
empowerment, engaged youth as leaders, and how their programs addressed food system 
issues.  
 
Case Convergence 
Findings indicated programs shared a similar underlying focus which guided the programmatic 
strategies and offered programming. The underlying focus centered upon the integration of 
PYD principles and practices into their programs.  
 
Program Foundation Built on PYD Principles and Practices  
Regardless of program focus, participants, or how they addressed food system issues, the 
program leaders discussed the practices they used as foundational aspects of their programs. 
While not always specifically identified by participants as such, these foundational practices 
align with PYD principles and practices. To begin, program leaders spoke of youth as assets and 
how they were valuable members of their community. As one program leader said “I truly 
believe these kids are born with everything they need from the get-go. I think it's just a matter 
of finding, you know, giving them the tools to lead and giving them the opportunities to lead 
and problem solve.” Some of the approaches used by participants to support youth 
development included age specific programming, maintaining appropriate youth to adult ratio, 
creating a safe place for youth to feel engaged and welcomed, and building trust between 
youth and adult leaders. Through PYD practices and education, program leaders hoped to 
inspire youth participants to become engaged to make a difference.  
 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  33 
 

Case Divergence 
Although all programs incorporated PYD into their programming, the approaches to teaching 
about and engaging in the food system diverged. The following themes describe how programs 
included food system education for youth and to what extent they viewed youth as actors in 
their local food system.  
 
Intentional Empowerment Approaches 
Four of the nine youth programs intentionally engaged in empowerment approaches related to 
food systems issues. These approaches included engaging youth in decision-making and 
problem-solving, promoting reflection on their influence on policies and procedures (within the 
program and the community), creating space to learn about and reflect on critical issues in their 
community, and equitable power sharing within programming. Program leaders supported 
youth’s civic engagement and aimed for active participation in understanding community 
issues, dynamics, and political processes. As one leader from a community-based program that 
served low-income urban youth said:  

If our students aren't engaged in the political process now, they're not exposed to it and 
they will not be our future congressmen our future school board leaders...they need to 
make their voices heard, so that it’s not just people who are affluent making decisions. 
But it's someone who understands the perils of their community being engaged in those 
decision-making capacities. 
 

This program utilized participatory methods with their youth such as creating asset maps of the 
communities and discussing community issues and incidents and teaching about different ways 
to engage in collective action.  
 
Another urban community-based youth program in a different city was intentional about 
equitable power sharing. They see youth as members of their team and felt that it was 
important to work on solving problems relevant to their youth. The program leader shared that 
when working with students and their classroom teachers during the summer:  

We do not train teachers to stand over children and get them to do things. We train 
teachers and children to work together to solve problems that are relevant to the 
student and [it’s] important to the educator that they have outcomes tied to them. The 
whole power dynamic shifts and that’s why we have teachers in with students during 
our summer institutes and teachers in with students during our summer programs, 
because teachers need to learn in this world. 
 

This program challenged the traditional ‘teacher as expert’ model by creating spaces where 
students could be co-investigators on issues and were not given answers, rather they were 
empowered to seek them. 
 
A final example of intentional empowerment approaches was shared by an urban/peri-urban 4-
H program. Through both critical reflection and exploring youth’s perceptions of their influence 
on policy, the program aimed to support their development as problem-solvers and advocates, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  34 
 

especially around issues related to food and agriculture. The program leader shared that when 
participating in 4-H: 

...they may learn about a community garden or a farmers' market or they may learn 
about a community that does not have access to fresh food and hopefully to take 
action.... A plan of action to advocate for to, to write letters for to address county 
councils and city councils. [We've] taken them down to the statehouse to advocate on 
issues that are important to them. And really getting them to understand why this 
should be important to them. 
 

Overall, these four programs created spaces for youth to learn about: issues occurring in their 
communities, how those issues were impacting them and their families, and skills that would 
help them to address them on the community level. The five programs not discussed above did 
encourage community engagement through service projects but lacked the intentional 
incorporating of empowerment practices to allow youth to feel like actors and change agents 
within their community to address food security issues.   
 
Youth as Leaders 
Another case divergence was how program leaders saw youth as leaders or were intentionally 
developing their leadership skills. Leadership can be an outcome of both PYD and 
empowerment approaches. Five of the 9 program leaders discussed youth as leaders and 
approached programming with leadership development in mind. A program leader stated, "We 
all view them as leaders… kind of constantly encouraging an environment of, like, we believe in 
you, whatever it is that you know, you think and you feel and want to do, you have our full 
support." Another participant stated that “We see our youth as being tomorrow’s leaders. We 
often tell our kids that they need to get involved, that they can make a difference.” Both 
statements are reflected in the empowerment approaches that these programs utilized to 
increase civic engagement.  
 
Other programs explicitly cite how they were developing leadership skills. For some, it was 
getting the adults to step back and let youth take the lead. As one 4-H educator explained, 
“Junior Fair Board is another where the youth are leaders...it’s kind of a youth led 
organization.” The FFA advisor also described how: 

We work really hard to never be the sage on the stage, we’re the guide on the side. 
That’s not our job; our job is to grow leaders to understand how to put together 
programming to empower others and advocate for agriculture and for hunger and for all 
aspects of leadership. 
 

Another program leader discussed not only how to support leadership, but also followership: 
Find your collaboration style. We identify and they self-identify the leaders. If you are a 
leader, great, then we are going to give you the skills to lead. If you’re a follower, great, 
we’re going to give you critical thinking skills.  
 

It should be noted that not all the programs that used intentional empowerment approaches 
were the same that cited youth as leaders and focused on leadership development explicitly. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  35 
 

This indicates that there can be an overlap in empowerment and leadership, but they are not 
necessarily synonymous.  
 
The divergent cases did not have a lack of youth leader positions, as most of them had 
leadership teams and/or committee systems. Where they differed was the absence of 
describing youth as having leadership capacity and the discussing intentional development of 
leadership skills.  
 
Engagement in Food Systems Issues 
All programs had some type of food and/or nutrition programming and many program leaders 
mentioned the use of hands-on and project-based learning, including raised garden beds, 
community gardens, and cooking classes. Through these experiences, youth learned about food 
production, how they could produce food, and proper methods to prepare fruits and 
vegetables. However, not all programs had direct links to food security, a problem that affects 
most of the communities in which they worked.  
 
Four programs did not include specific food security curriculum but the reasoning behind that 
varied across the sample. One program leader shared the perspective that youth of certain ages 
were not mature enough to discuss food systems issues. Another program leader told us "We 
haven't had any direct or, I should say like outright conversations about food access and 
addressing it as an issue." Thia program leader informed us they like to leave food insecurity 
and community issues "open to interpretation" for youth instead of having a direct 
conversation. For one organization it was due to their capacity for teaching the topic and for 
another it was not a topic they felt comfortable discussing.  
 
For those that did include food security, it was incorporated into their programming in various 
ways. It may be providing education on hunger both locally or globally or teaching curriculum 
about food security specifically. One urban program emphasized the interdisciplinary and 
interconnected nature of food systems issues by describing curriculum they had developed with 
a local high school: 

We helped develop curriculum around design challenges that deal with food scarcity, 
food security, food science and water scarcity because all four of those belong together. 
Those interact with the other learning labs [human health and development, 
engineering and problem analysis, energy, and digital] ...because all of those had 
something to do with either the logistics, the growing, the technology, or the sense of 
socio economic and legal components of food justice and food security. 
 

Within a rural high school classroom, the agricultural educator and FFA advisor has continued 
efforts to include food systems issues in her curriculum and has partnered with elementary 
educators local food banks and Extension educators in her community. The educator’s project-
based learning approach incorporates local needs so that students can describe food insecurity 
and develop strategies to address it. This participant expressed that “...as we continue to move 
forward, I think food insecurity, food deserts, and food production. All of that has to be at the 
core of who we are, because that is what keeps peace in this world, in our country.” 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  36 
 

Discussion and Recommendations 
 
To begin, we would like to acknowledge the transferability of the study’s findings. While not 
generalizable, the findings can be transferred to similar situations as we purposively sampled a 
variety of programs which represent different urban and rural locations, after school, 
community based or extracurricular programs, and food and/or health-based programming. We 
concluded that regardless of program type or location, all the adult practitioners were 
intentional about incorporating a foundation of PYD. It was clear that PYD practices were 
central to the functioning of the programs, as an intentional approach is crucial for supporting 
the development of a youth participant (Hamilton et al., 2004). The use of PYD practices and 
principles within these programs can help support positive outcomes for the youth participants 
(Hamilton et al., 2004). 
 
While the programs shared the use of PYD practices and principles, they differed in how they 
approached empowerment, youth leadership, and food system issues. Just under half of the 
adult practitioners incorporated empowerment approaches within their programming. While 
the participants did not specifically reference empowerment related literature, research, or 
theory they were intentional in acknowledging and letting youth voices drive program 
decisions. Their efforts reflect several dimensions from Jennings et al.’s (2006) youth 
empowerment theory such as critical reflection on interpersonal and sociopolitical processes, 
equitable power-sharing between youth and adults, and engaging youth in decision-making and 
problem-solving. Utilizing these approaches can aid in increasing youth’s understanding of 
issues in the food system, shape their attitudes with food and influence action to support 
change in systems (Fulford & Thompson, 2013; Lewis et al., 2018; Muturi, et al., 2018; 
Zimmerman, 2000).  
 
Further, over half of the adult practitioners viewed youth as leaders and intentionally 
developed their leadership skills. Youth leadership has been described as an empowerment-
based conception that incorporates youth inspiration and mobilization of people to address 
societal issues (Kahn et al., 2009) and effect positive change (Harris & Beckert, 2019). However, 
much of the literature focuses on youth leadership development, that is, what adults can do to 
develop youth as leaders, rather than seeing them as agents of change. This is an important 
tension as our findings also indicated that programs may see leadership development as more 
of specific skill-building rather than also including aspirational aspects of how to engage in 
broader change processes.  
 
We concluded that all programs had some type of food and/or nutrition programming with 
many focusing on food production and preparation. Just under half of the programming did not 
focus on food security due to a belief that their participants were too young to engage in the 
topic, a lack of time to address these types of issues, and a lack of efficacy in the adult 
practitioner to teach it. Those who did teach food security acknowledged and built 
programming to allow for youth to explore the complex, interdisciplinary nature of food system 
issues (Berkes et al., 2003). Both rural and urban communities in Ohio experience food 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  37 
 

insecurity, which was apparent in our findings with several programs citing that they were 
situated in food insecure areas. Considering this is a pervasive issue that will require action and 
local and state levels and that it is a systemic issue requiring understanding of cause and effect, 
educating and involving youth about food security and nutrition can encourage civic 
engagement, activism, and informed dialogue within their communities.  
 
Several recommendations for practice can be made from the findings and youth empowerment 
literature. To begin, it is recommended that regardless of program type or focus to build a 
foundation on PYD to create a culture focused on viewing youth as assets and meeting the basic 
needs of youth. Next, adult practitioners should intentionally incorporate both youth leadership 
development and empowerment practices broadly to increase awareness of systemic issues 
and prepare youth to engage in them. Programs in this study incorporated various methods 
that may lead to youth empowerment. Models can present questions to assess levels of youth 
participation within a program and determine the levels of control youth and adults have in 
decision-making, program planning, and issue identification (Shier, 2001). The TYPE Pyramid 
from Wong et al. (2010) takes the idea of shared youth-adult control further by presenting how 
intergenerational linkages might be considered on a continuum from adult control to youth 
control, with pluralistic shared control considered optimal for youth empowerment. By 
intentionally considering and incorporating a youth empowerment model within their program 
planning, program leaders could further impact youth’s motivation and ability to address 
complex issues within the food system.  
 
Further, activities that address food systems issues can go beyond community service and 
extend to community engagement. Although canned food drives are an important part of 
addressing community needs, this activity does not push youth to consider the systemic issues 
that drive community needs. For example, canned food drives may not address what foods 
might be culturally appropriate, nutrient dense, and/or sustainable for recipients. One-time 
volunteer or service activities also may not connect youth meaningfully to policy makers or 
community organizations working on systemic change. Programs in this study that engaged in 
empowerment approaches uplifted youth voices in community by partnering with other 
community organizations, participating in service-learning or project-based learning and 
attending community meetings. Future research in this area should continue to investigate how 
youth programming is engaging and empowering youth to act on food system issues by 
measuring youths’ perceived level of ability to address these issues. Instead of being viewed as 
a program participant, youth can be seen as problem solvers, volunteers, and change-makers in 
their communities. Additionally, future research can evaluate program leaders' knowledge 
levels of youth empowerment frameworks and models and their ability to incorporate them 
into their programs. Finally, community and/or youth led action research allows youth to have 
a voice in exploring the food systems issues in their community as well as providing actionable 
outcomes driven by community need. This process can include community mapping of the food 
system and outreach activities such as podcasts and community-shared infographics on food 
security and nutrition.  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  38 
 

Acknowledgments 
 
This research was supported by the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences 
SEEDS Research Program at The Ohio State University. 
 
Portions of this research were presented at the 2021 North Central American Association for 
Agricultural Education Conference in Columbus, OH. 
https://aaea.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/North%20Central/2021Conference/2021No
rthCentralResearchProceedings.pdf  
 
Author contributions: J. E. Niewoehner-Green – formulation of overarching research goals, 
design of methodology, qualitative data, analysis, writing of manuscript including revisions and 
final publication draft. A. B. Bowling - formulation of overarching research goals, design of 
methodology, qualitative data, analysis, writing of manuscript including revisions. K. Rinehart – 
data collection, data analysis, writing of draft manuscript. 
 

References 
 
Akah,H., Wiselogel, N., Almasi, C., & Bush Stevens, A. (2023). 2023 Health value dashboard. 

Health Policy Institute of Ohio. https://www.healthpolicyOhio.org/our-
work/publications/2023-health-value-dashboard  

 
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social–ecological systems: Building 

resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957  

 
CDC. (2023, January 10). Healthy eating learning opportunities and nutrition education. CDC 

Healthy Schools. https://www.cdc.gov/school-
nutrition/education/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/sc
hool_nutrition_education.htm  

 
Charbonneau, D. R., Cheadle, A., Orbé, C., Frey, M., & Gaolach, B. (2014). FEEST on this: Youth 

engagement for community change in the king county food and fitness initiative. 
Community Development, 45(3), 240–251. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.08.001  

 
Chiessi, M., Cicognani, E., & Sonn, C. (2010). Assessing sense of community on adolescents: 

Validating the brief scale of sense of community in adolescents (SOC-A). Journal of 
Community Psychology, 38, 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20364  

 
Christens, B. D., & Peterson, N. A. (2012). The role of empowerment in youth development: A 

study of sociopolitical control as mediator of ecological systems’ influence on 
developmental outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 623–635. https://doi-
org.proxy.lib.Ohio-state.edu/10.1007/s10964-011-9724-9 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543
https://www.healthpolicyohio.org/our-work/publications/2023-health-value-dashboard
https://www.healthpolicyohio.org/our-work/publications/2023-health-value-dashboard
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957
https://www.cdc.gov/school-nutrition/education/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/school_nutrition_education.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/school-nutrition/education/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/school_nutrition_education.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/school-nutrition/education/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/school_nutrition_education.htm
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.08.001
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20364
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1007/s10964-011-9724-9
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1007/s10964-011-9724-9


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  39 
 

Christens, B. D., & Zeldin, S. (2018). Community engagement. In: R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.) 
Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 682-692). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-33228-424 

 
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among 

five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research. Sage. 
 
Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. 

Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234–245. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002  

 
Fulford, S., & Thompson, S. (2013). Youth community gardening programming as community 

development: The Youth for EcoAction program in Winnipeg, Canada. Canadian Journal 
of Nonprofit & Social Economy Research, 4(2), 56–75. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.Ohio-
state.edu/10.22230/cjnser.2013v4n2a145  

 
Harris A., & Beckert T. (2019). Leadership emergence through volunteerism: A case study of late 

adolescent exemplars. Journal of Leadership Education, 18(2), 110–125. 
https://doi.org/10.12806/V18/I2/R9  

 
Hamilton, S., Hamilton, M., & Pittman, K. (2004). Principles for youth development. In S. 

Hamilton, & M. Hamilton (Eds.), The youth development handbook: Coming of age in 
American communities (pp. 3–22). Sage Publications, Inc. 

 
Holden, D. J., Evans, W.D., Hinnant, L.W., & Messeri, P. (2005). Modeling psychological 

empowerment among youth involved in local tobacco control efforts. Health Education 
& Behavior, 32(2), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104272336 

 
Hunger Network in Ohio. (n.d.). These numbers have faces. 

https://www.hungernetOhio.com/understand-hunger  
 
Jennings, L. B., Parra-Medina, D. M, Hilfinger-Messias, D. K., & McLoughlin, K. (2006) Toward a 

critical social theory of youth empowerment. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1–2), 
31–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n01_03 

 
Kahn, L., Hewes, S., & Ali, R. (2009). Taking the lead: Youth leadership in theory and practice. 

The Young Foundation. https://youngfoundation.b-cdn.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Taking-the-Lead-October-2009.pdf?x83233 

 
Kwan, A. (2014) Youth Food Activism. In P. B. Thompson & D. M. Kaplan (Eds.) Encyclopedia of 

food and agricultural ethics (pp. 1850–1856). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-0929-4_431 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33228-424
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33228-424
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.22230/cjnser.2013v4n2a145
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.22230/cjnser.2013v4n2a145
https://doi.org/10.12806/V18/I2/R9
https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104272336
https://www.hungernetohio.com/understand-hunger
https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v14n01_03
https://youngfoundation.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Taking-the-Lead-October-2009.pdf?x83233
https://youngfoundation.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Taking-the-Lead-October-2009.pdf?x83233
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_431
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_431


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  40 
 

Lewis, R. K., Lee, F. A., Brown, K. K., LoCurto, J., Stowell, D., Maryman, J., Lovelady, T., Williams, 
G., Morris, D. M., & McNair, T. (2018). Youth empowerment implementation project 
evaluation results: A program designed to improve the health and well-being of low-
income African-American adolescents. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the 
Community, 46(1), 28–42. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.Ohio-
state.edu/10.1080/10852352.2018  

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. 
 
Muturi, N., Kidd, T., Daniels, A. M., Kattelmann, K. K., Khan, T., Lindshield, E., Zies, S., & Adhikari, 

K. (2018). Examining the role of youth empowerment in preventing adolescence obesity 
in low-income communities. Journal of Adolescence, 68, 242-251. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADOLESCENCE.2018.08.001 

 
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory research and application. 

American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569-579. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506982  

 
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, 592–605. https://doi-
org.proxy.lib.Ohio-state.edu/10.1002/jcop.20456 

 
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for 

community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121–148. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275 

 
Renwick, K., & Powell, L., (2019). Focusing on the literacy in food literacy: Practice, community, 

and food sovereignty. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 111(1), 24–30. 
https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS111.1.24. 

 
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers 

from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7(2), 94–111. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0702_6 

 
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. 
 
Schusler, T. M. (2013). Environmental action and Positive Youth Development. In M. C. Monroe 

& M. E. Krasny (Eds.), Across the spectrum (pp. 93–115). North American Association for 
Environmental Education.  

 
Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities, and obligations. Children 

and Society, 15, 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/10852352.2018
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1080/10852352.2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADOLESCENCE.2018.08.001
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506982
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506982
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1002/jcop.20456
https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1002/jcop.20456
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275
https://doi.org/10.14307/JFCS111.1.24
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0702_6
https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617


Niewoehner-Green et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543  41 
 

Smelkova, L. (2015). Food education in America. Center for Science in the Public Interest. 
Washington, DC. https://kiesel.ucdavis.edu/Food_education_report_Dec2015.pdf 

 
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications  
 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (n.d.). Youth power: What works 

in youth and agriculture, food security, and nutrition. 
https://www.youthpower.org/what-works-youth-and-agriculture-food-security-and-
nutrition  

 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2021). Dialogue summary: Youth voices in 

sustainable U.S. food systems. 
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Youth-Dialogue-Summary-
USDA.pdf  

 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2023). Food security in the U.S.: Key statistics 

and graphics, 2022. Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-
nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/#map  

 
University of Oxford. (n.d.). What is the food system? Oxford Martin Programme on the Future 

of Food. https://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/what-food-system 
 
Wong N. T., Zimmerman, M. A., & Parker, E. A. (2010). A typology of youth participation and 

empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of 
Community Psychology, 46, 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0 

 
Yeboah, F. K. (2018). Youth for growth: Transforming economies through agriculture. Global 

Food Security Report. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. 
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/report_youth-for-
growth_20180322.pdf  

 
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and application: Design and methods (6th ed). Sage. 
 
Zimmerman M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory. In J. Rappaport J., & E. Seidman (Eds.), 

Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63). Springer. 
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2  

 
 
© 2025 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i2.543
https://kiesel.ucdavis.edu/Food_education_report_Dec2015.pdf
https://www.youthpower.org/what-works-youth-and-agriculture-food-security-and-nutrition
https://www.youthpower.org/what-works-youth-and-agriculture-food-security-and-nutrition
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Youth-Dialogue-Summary-USDA.pdf
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Youth-Dialogue-Summary-USDA.pdf
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/#map
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/#map
https://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/what-food-system
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9330-0
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/report_youth-for-growth_20180322.pdf
https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/report_youth-for-growth_20180322.pdf
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2

