Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs.

Abstract

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.

Worldwide application of prevention science in adolescent health

“…Such concerns helped expand the design of prevention programmes to include components aimed at health promotion. 3,12 Over the past 30 years, several controlled trials have shown that preventive and promotive policies and programmes (called preventive interventions hereafter) can be efficacious and cost effective at reducing adolescent problem behaviour and improving health. 13 Prevention science has had a different history in low-income and middle-income countries.…”

Special Issue Introduction: Thriving Across the Adolescent Years: A View of the Issues

“…The mutually beneficial features of the relations that enabled thriving to emerge were based on the idea that PYD occurred when there was an alignment between attributes of youth that constituted strengths of the individual (as, for instance, operationalized by characteristics such as intentional self-regulation skills, hopeful future expectations, and school engagement; Lerner et al 2013) and the features of the context that were developmental assets (for instance, warmth and monitoring by engaged parents or sustained relations with a caring and competent mentor or youth program practitioner). This strengths-based approach to youth development in general and to the understanding of thriving in particular was a frame for the key approaches to the design of PYD programs and to instances of such programs that were derived from such theory-predicated approaches (e.g., Catalano et al 2002Catalano et al , 2004Flay 2002;Flay and Allred 2003;Kurtines et al 2008).…”

Program implementers’ evaluation of Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong: a study based on different cohorts

“…The 15 constructs are: bonding, social competence, emotional competence, cognitive competence, behavioral competence, moral competence, self-effi cacy, prosocial norms, resilience, self-determination, spirituality, clear and positive identity, belief in the future, prosocial involvement, and recognition for positive behaviors. These 15 constructs were common features indentifi ed by Catalano et al (12) in successful positive youth development programs. Because teachers and social workers in Hong Kong are not familiar with the concept of positive youth development, program implementers are also provided with 3-day intensive training on the theoretical foundation of Project P.A.T.H.S.…”