This article summarizes a much lengthier one that appeared in Prevention and Treatment. The earlier article grew out of a project initiated by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. The Positive Youth Development Evaluation project described why policy makers, practitioners, and prevention scientists advocated a shift in approach for how youth issues are addressed in this country. The Positive Youth Development Evaluation project sought to define how youth development programs have been defined in the literature and then to locate, through a structured search, strong evaluations of these programs and summarize the outcomes of these evaluations. In the current article, we explain why prevention has shifted from a single problem focus to a focus on factors that affect both positive and problem youth development, describe what is meant by positive youth development, and summarize what we know about the effectiveness of positive youth development programs.

and Power Conclusions Future Directions REFERENCES APPENDIXES implicated in youth problem behavior; l identify and summarize the results of evaluations of positive youth development interventions; and l identify elements contributing to both the success and lack of success in positive youth development programs and program evaluations, as well as potential improvements in evaluation approaches. Defining Positive Youth DevelopmentPositive youth development is not yet well defined. This study has identified a set of recognizable features of positive youth development programs, which generally seek to achieve one or more of the following objectives:l promote bonding l foster resilience l promote social, emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and moral competence l foster self-determination l foster spirituality l foster self-efficacy l foster clear and positive identity l foster belief in the future l provide recognition for positive behavior and opportunities for prosocial involvement l foster prosocial norms (healthy standards for behavior). Selecting Programs for ReviewThe programs reviewed for this study all sought to achieve one or more of these positive youth development objectives with youths aged 6-20. Programs were not included if their activities represented treatment of, or a response to a diagnosed disorder or behavior problem. All evaluations of these programs were considered against the usual standard in the field -research designs employing control or at least strong comparison groups --and all had to measure youth behavioral outcomes.Seventy-seven positive youth development programs with evaluated interventions were selected and analyzed for their effects. Twenty-five of these programs were ultimately designated as "effective" based on the evidence presented in the evaluation. The 52 other programs were generally excluded either because the evaluation did not meet the study's scientific criteria, or, in spite of meeting the criteria, there was no evidence their program components produced an impact. Regrettably, some positive youth development programs with potential could not be fully considered in the review due to being in the early implementation stages of their study or because they lacked an evaluation component.

No abstract

BackgroundSubstance use in general has been shown to predict criminal recidivism. The present study aimed to examine potential predictors of criminal recidivism, including substance-specific substance use patterns, in prisoners with substance use.MethodsA cohort of prisoners with substance use problems (N = 4,152) were assessed with the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) in the Swedish criminal justice system. Clients were followed for an average of 2.7 years. Criminal recidivism was defined as any return to the criminal justice system.ResultsDuring follow-up, 69 percent (n = 2,862) returned to the criminal justice system. Recidivism was associated with amphetamine and heroin use, with an additive risk for injectors, and with polysubstance use. Also, recidivism was negatively associated with alcohol, other opioids than heroin/methadone and with hallucinogenic drugs, and positively associated with previous psychiatric in-patient treatment, violent behaviour, and with a shorter index sentence. Associations remained when controlling for type of crime.ConclusionsEven when controlling for type and severity of crime, and for psychiatric problems, risk of criminal relapse was increased by substance use variables, including amphetamine, heroin and polysubstance use, and an additional risk was shown for injection drug users. These findings have implications for the need for substance abuse treatment after release from prison.

This article represents the proceedings of a symposium at the 2002 annual meeting of the Research Society on Alcoholism in San Francisco, CA, organized and cochaired by Mats Berglund and Sten Thelander. The presentations were (1) Preventive interventions against hazardous consumption of alcohol, by Mikko Salaspuro; (2) Treatment of alcohol withdrawal, by Johan Franck; (3) Psychosocial treatment for alcohol problems, by Sven Andréasson and Agneta Ojehagen; and (4) Pharmacological treatment of alcohol dependence, by Mats Berglund.