Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs

Abstract

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.

Evaluation of the “Steps for Life” Personal and Social Skills Greek K-Curriculum

“…In analogy, two also significantly more improved dimensions in our study that have to do with bullying prevention-namely control of verbal and physical aggression and control of victimization, turned out to constitute equally widely pursued and met targets by other researchers (Aiken et al, 1998;Catalano et al, 2004;McMahon et al, 2000;Powell & Dunlap, 2009), indicating that socio-emotional enhancement school approaches can make a significant difference regarding violence and aggression.…”

Readiness to Implement School-Based Social-Emotional Learning Interventions: Using Research on Factors Related to Implementation to Maximize Quality

“…Social and emotional interventions have evolved out of different traditions including education, social work, child psychiatry, public health, psychology, and prevention (Catalano et al 2004;Greenberg et al 2001;Hahn et al 2007;Wilson and Lipsey 2007). The evidence base for these programs has grown steadily since rigorous trials first established their positive impact on behavioral and academic outcomes; there are now several meta-analyses summarizing this body of research (Durlak et al 2011;Sklad et al 2012).…”

The Effects of Lithuanian School-Based Positive Youth Development Program on Positive and Problem Outcomes

“…They mentioned (a) opportunities for participation and leadership, (b) development of life-skills, and (c) caring adult-youth relationship. Elements defined by Catalano et al (2004) are similar to those identified by Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003a), who uncovered defining characteristics of youth development programs as always having youth-centered, knowledge-centered, care-centered goals, atmosphere and activities. Lerner (2004a) in his review has summarized features of best practice of developmental program, as "Big Three", which involves opportunities for youth participation and leadership, and development of life skills within the context of a sustained and caring adult-youth relationship (2004a).…”

“…Although there are numerous attempts to evaluate PYD program effectiveness (e.g., Catalano et al, 2004), the attempts to empirically test whether youth development programs stimulate changes in the Five Cs and/or contribution are limited. The very first cross sectional efforts to prove relationship between program participation and PYD (measured as the Five Cs) in early adolescence (Lerner et al, 2005) yielded insignificant results, but the relationship between program participation and contribution was found.…”