Youth development: going to the next level; services for youth need to help reduce problem behaviors, and increase pro-social attitudes and skills - Social Issues

Youth development as a term and set of practices began to emerge in the late 1980s. However, concerns began that youth programs were being restricted to "at-risk" youth, too often defined as persons of color from economically disadvantaged families, and from single-parent homes. Clearly, it was argued, there were youth from many other backgrounds, living in all parts of almost every community, who were demonstrating problematic behaviors.

In addition, there was a growing professional and public backlash against only dealing with the problems of a few, as opposed to offering services for everyone. Many professionals argued that "all youth are at-risk," that youth across the entire community are in need of services, and that school shootings, drug arrests and pregnancy rates in even middle-class communities are evidence of the need to serve everyone.

Problem Free is Not Fully Prepared

Unfortunately research findings have suggested that approaches to lessening youth problems, whether for some youth or all youth, have "produced weak, transient or no results" (Connell, Gambone, & Smith, 2001, p. 1). While a problems-based approach assumes that there is something wrong with the individual and that we need to provide the skills and knowledge to correct deficiencies, undertaking these types of programs has only had modest success.

However, "problem free is not fully prepared" and "fully prepared is not fully engaged" (Pittman, Irby & Ferber, 2000). Services for youth need to both help reduce problem behaviors, as well as increase pro-social attitudes and skills. The message is that it is possible to be problem free and still not necessarily grow up to be a fully functioning adult, and it is possible to be fully prepared and not use the skills and abilities one has in a positive manner.

These leaps of understanding are the bedrock principles of the youth development movement. According to advocates, efforts need to be made to create organizations and communities that enable youth to move along the pathways to adulthood by supplying the supports and opportunities necessary to develop beyond simple problem prevention. These approaches do not eliminate the need to target specific highrisk individuals for attention, but clearly indicate that efforts should not be restricted to this group or only be concerned with problem remediation. As Gambone et al. (2001) noted:

"At the center of this thinking is the idea that young people are assets in the making -- their development dependent on a range of supports and opportunities coming from family, community and the other institutions that touch them. When supports and opportunities are plentiful, young people can and do thrive; when their environments are deficient or depleted, youth tend not to grow and progress." (pp. 1-2)

What is more, Pittman and her colleagues (2000) have also argued that "academic competence, while critical is not nearly enough" and "competence alone, while critical, is not enough." In the first instance, to be fully prepared, individuals also need to achieve vocational, physical, emotional, civic, social and cultural competence. In the second, it is a necessity to apply this competence in action.

The emerging youth development lexicon strongly promotes thinking beyond an "either/or" mind set to one that embraces "and." It is not necessary to choose between prevention and positive development: both are appropriate and needed.

"If the entire spectrum of youth services can be thought of as a continuum, youth development services would be at one end and social control or incarceration would be at the other. In between these ends of the continuum would fall primary prevention (of problems such as substance abuse, adolescent pregnancy, juvenile crime, and the like); short-term intervention; and long-term treatment." (Quinn (1999), p. 98)

Defining Youth Development

"Youth development is a process which prepares young people to meet the challenges of adolescence and adulthood through a coordinated, progressive series of activities and experiences that help them to become socially, morally, emotionally, physically and cognitively competent. Positive youth development addresses the broader developmental needs of youth, in contrast to deficit-based models which focus solely on youth problems," according to the National Collaboration for Youth Members, in March 1998.

This definition is an exciting change in language and focus for efforts to better serve youth. Unfortunately, in a number of cases, youth-serving agencies have adopted the youth development language, but have in reality made few changes in their service priorities and approaches. (This is similar to what has taken place in the benefits movement, where too often agencies have adopted slogans and other elements of the benefits framework, without fully engaging in real change in agency approaches to program conceptualization, goal setting, program planning, outcome evaluation, and program delivery.)

Again as Pittman et al., (2000) note, we need to "increase the options for instruction and involvement by improving the quality and availability of supports, services, and opportunities" to achieve what Benson and Saito (2000) refer to as "thriving behavior."

The youth development process must involve youth-serving organizations, but also must involve families, schools and other institutions according to Connell (2001). In other words, an ecological approach to development is required. The Search Institute's Development Assets Model (www.searchinstitute.org) has provided a powerful tool for identifying and building the internal and external supports necessary for youth to grow along the pathway to adulthood, while America's Promise (www.americaspromise.org) articulates a series of five elements of a plan leading to the positive development of young people: creating ongoing relationships with caring adults -- parents, mentors, tutors or coaches; creating safe places with structured activities during non-school hours; enabling each child to get a healthy start and have a positive future; through effective education helping each child to develop marketable skills; and enabling youth to have opportunities to give back through community service.

Youth Development and Park and Recreation Departments

To fully play a role, there is currently a need for parks and recreation departments to fully understand and adopt the youth development language; fully use the power of the underlying youth principles to make real changes in programmatic approaches; meaningfully collaborate with other youth-serving agencies to identify needs and provide more consistent youth development programs; and develop a dynamic youth development system that works within the context of the overall community.

Over the last ten to 12 years, agencies have moved closer to adopting and fully understanding youth development principles and practices. Yet with the growing understanding that youth development is a complex, comprehensive strategy for changing young people's environments and opportunity structures, to be successful, agency youth development efforts must be part of a comprehensive youth development strategy that involves all segments of the community. Developing supports, opportunities and developmental assets, or meeting the goals of America's Promise, all require efforts beyond a single agency. Youth-serving agencies need to embed their efforts in a larger community context and become part of community-wide planning efforts. Parks and recreation agencies are playing a key roles in helping communities nationwide better understand youth needs, developing comprehensive strategies for meeting these needs, and implementing and evaluating whether strategies are being successful.

Agencies need to be sure to move beyond "gym and swim" programs designed to keep youth off the streets. These programs and settings mainly provide a place to go and things to do. But can full youth development be a result of these efforts? Agencies must embraces all aspects of the youth development continuum. Programming must be intentional -- what do we want to have happen and how are we going to make it happen? (McLaughlin, 2000).

To do this, we need to develop a "common vision of success at the end of adolescence, in particular, the ability of youth to find rewarding and remunerative employment, form a lasting and gratifying partnership or become contributors in their communities" (Furstenberg, 1999). We also need to further our understanding of the dimensions of activities that make the transition to adulthood more likely to succeed. At present, there is fairly good agreement that the following program elements are necessary: a sense of safety; challenging and interesting activities; a sense of belonging; supportive relationships with adults; involvement in decision-making; opportunities for leadership; and involvement in community (Gambone & Arbreton, 1997).

The Power of Adults

The youth development paradigm also recognizes the primacy of adults in supporting youth efforts to navigate the pathways to adulthood, while still enabling youth to have a real voice and power in planning, organizing, and leading programs and activities. There is also substantial evidence that "resilient children, the ones who thrive despite obstacles, typically have caring adults present and active in their lives" (Walker, 1998, p. 14). Caring adults can be program staff, volunteers from the community, or parents. In all cases, the most effective adults work in partnership with young people. They "see themselves as supportive friends and advocates in contrast to adults motivated to save, reform, or rescue young people from their circumstances" (Walker, 1998, p. 15). The key is to make sure that youth efforts are "scaffolded" by adults (Pittman, et al., 2000). Youth, like an emerging building, need support during "construction/development." Eventually, when ready to stand on their own, the scaffolding is first lessened and eventually withdrawn.

Don't focus on the primacy of the activity over the process of participants interacting with meaningful adults. Adults can serve as leaders, coaches or teachers. Whatever the role, adults have the potential to guide and influence youth as they move along the pathways to adulthood. No one setting offers the richness and variety of experiences.

Take advantage of your agency's potential to make a difference in the lives of youth in your community. To realize the full power of adults in the lives of youth, quality adult leaders must be hired, trained, rewarded and retained. However, these objectives are not always easy to accomplish. Don't hire individuals who are too young and have too many issues themselves to be strong resources in the lives of youth. Too often leaders only plan to be around for a short time, thus undermining the value of creating long-term, in-depth relationships. In many cases, a system is not in place to develop leaders on a pre-service and ongoing basis who understand the principles of youth development and how to translate these principles into meaningful practice. Agencies often do not pay enough to attract and retain quality staff. Too often we entrust our youth to low-paid individuals who turn over far to quickly.

Other critical elements of youth development practices include ensuring that the opportunities, services and supports offered are available for a critical mass of young people who want or need them. Services must be of a scale and a level of saturation to achieve the threshold necessary to make a difference. In addition, it is critical that the opportunities created are sustained from year to year. Development is ongoing and takes time to accomplish. One-shot, short-term programs generate participants, but not necessarily meaningful development. Ensuring that more young people in more neighborhoods have more and better supports and opportunities more of the time should be our goal (Pittman, et al., 2000).

Changing the way we think about design and delivery of programs can go a long way to achieving development beyond problem prevention. While the tone and structure of youth development is subtle and multi-layered, its tenets and practices can be achieved in every park and recreation department across the country. To do less is to waste our opportunity to be an active participant in the positive development of our nation's youth.

Goals that Make Change

* Work to achieve quick turnarounds of negative behaviors and undertake efforts to develop long-term supports for positive development;

* Promote both basic services targeted to a single issue or area of the community and at the same time promote efforts to strategically plan a system of services in our communities;

* Utilize youth professionals to lead and plan activities and insure that youth, their parents and other stakeholders in the community are fully engaged and involved;

* Develop new ideas into pilot programs and make concerted efforts to develop long-term programs, with solid funding streams. (Pittman, et al., 2000)

Youth Program Building Blocks

The 2001 National Academy of Sciences report finds that the following elements are thought to be the building blocks of quality youth development programs.

* Physical and psychological safety;

* Structure that is developmentally appropriate;

* Emotional moral support;

* Opportunities for adolescents to experience supportive adult relationships;

* Opportunities to learn how to form close, durable human relationships;

* Opportunities for skill building and mastery;

* Opportunities to develop confidence in one's abilities to master one's environment (a sense of personal efficacy);

* Opportunities to make a contribution to one's community and to develop a sense of mattering; and

* Strong links between families, schools, and broader community resources.

References

America's Promise. Source: www.americaspromise.org/

Benson, P.L. and Saito, R. (2000). The Scientific Foundation of Youth Development. Youth Development: Issues, Challenges and Directions. Philadelphia: Public Private Ventures. www.ppv.org/indexfiles/yd-index.html

Connell, J.P., Gambone, M.A., and Smith, T.J. (2001). Youth Development in Community Settings: Challenges to our Field and our Approach. Toms River, NJ: Institute for Research and Reform in Education.

Furstenberg, F.E. (1999). Managing to Make It: Urban Families and Adolescent Success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gambone, M.A., and Arbreton, A.J.A. (1997). Safe Havens: The Contributions of Youth Organizations to Healthy Adolescent Development. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

McLaughlin, M.W. (2000). Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development. Washington, D.C.: Public Education Network. www.publiceducation.org/cgi-bin/pubs/web_store.cgi? page=p72.htm&cart_id=

National Academy of Sciences (2001). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

National Youth Development Information (2001). Source: www.nydic.org/devdef.html.

Pittman, P., Irby, M., Ferber, T. (2000). Unfinished Business. Youth Development: Issues, Challenges and Directions. Philadelphia: Public Private Ventures. www.ppv.org/indexfiles/yd-index.html

Quinn, J. (1999) Where Need Meets Opportunity: Youth Development Programs for Early Teens. The Future of Children: When School is Out, 9(2), pp. 96-116. www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol9no2Art 9done.pdf

Search Institute. 40 Developmental Assets Model. Source: www.search-institute.org/

Walker, J. and White, L. (1998). Caring Adults Support the Healthy Development of Youth. The Center, pp. 14-19. www.fourh.umn. edu/educators/research/Center/Center 1998.html

Witt, P.A. and Crompton, J.L. (1996). Recreation Programs that Work for At-Risk Youth. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

RELATED ARTICLE: The creation of at-risk youth.

Rising concerns about increases in negative youth behaviors led to calls in the late 1980s to "doing something" to stop or decrease negative behaviors in teenagers, such as using alcohol and drugs; engaging in unprotected sex; having children out of wedlock or before teens were ready to be responsible parents; and being involved in or the victim of gang violence. The origin of many of park and recreation at-risk youth programs can be traced to negative events in communities that grabbed public attention and mobilized efforts "to do something" to overcome these problems and issues (Witt & Crompton, 1996).

During this period, it became fashionable to talk in terms of serving "at-risk" youth, youth who were thought to be more likely to undertake "risky behaviors," due to community or family circumstances. Because stopping or decreasing negative behaviors was deemed necessary by the public and politicians, agencies requesting funds promised that their programs would decrease unwanted behaviors and prevent youths from undertaking these negative behaviors in the first place. To label youth as "at-risk" was politically useful, if not necessary, and helped agencies define their niche and purpose, and get funding. Indicators that were considered useful in defining success include impact of programs on crime rates, adolescent pregnancies, and drug and alcohol consumption.

Peter A. Witt is the Elda K. Bradberry Recreation and Youth Development chair in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University. Witt's article, "Youth Development: Going to the Next Level", appears on page 52.

COPYRIGHT 2002 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group