ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION Positive youth development (PYD) refers in broad scope to childhood and adolescent development experiences that provide optimal life preparation for the attainment of adult potential and well-being. This paper reviews specific conceptual frameworks and focuses on the evidence from evaluations of program applications delivered prior to age 21 that have the common aim of encouraging PYD. The study of optimal development is relatively new and emerges from research into human growth through the life course. In the twentieth century, childhood and adolescence came to be increasingly regarded as special periods of development in which children were provided extra support to learn and develop. Early in the century, American society assumed an increased sense of responsibility for the care of its young people, including increasing the reach of education, delaying entry into the workforce, and providing supports for families who, historically, had nurtured the development of children. As the century progressed, changes in family socialization created changes in conceptualization of school and community practices to support families to raise successful children (Weissberg & Greenberg, 1997). Prevention of youth problems in the twentieth century has evolved from earlier treatment and intervention models. Many early prevention efforts were not based on child development theory or research, and most approaches failed to show positive impact on youth problems (Kirby, Harvey, Claussenius, & Novar, 1989; Malvin, Moskowitz, Schaeffer, & Schaps, 1984; Snow, Gilchrist, & Schinke, 1985). Faced with early failures, prevention program developers became increasingly aligned with the science of behavior development and change, and began designing program elements to address predictors of specific problem behaviors identified in longitudinal and intervention studies of youth. These prevention efforts were often guided by theories about how people make decisions, such as the Theory of Reasoned
Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and the Health Belief Model (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988). In the 1980s these prevention efforts focused on predictors of a single problem behavior and came under increasing criticism for having such a narrow focus. Concerns expressed by prevention practitioners, policymakers, and prevention scientists helped expand the design of prevention programs to include components aimed at promoting positive youth development (Catalano & Hawkins, 2002). In the 1990s, practitioners, policymakers, and prevention scientists adopted a broader focus for addressing youth issues (Pittman, O’Brien, & Kimball, 1993). In the late 1990s, youth development practitioners, the policy community, and prevention scientists reached similar conclusions about promoting better outcomes for youth. They all called for expanding programs beyond a single problem behavior focus and considering program effects on a range of positive and problem behaviors (Catalano, Hawkins, Berglund, Pollard, & Arthur, 2002; Kirby, Barth, Leland, & Fetro, 1991; National Research Council Institute of Medicine, Chalk, & Phillips, 1996; Pittman, 1991). This convergence in thinking has been recognized in forums on youth development including practitioners, policymakers (Pittman, 1991; Pittman & Fleming, 1991), and prevention scientists (National Research Council Institute of Medicine, 2002; National Research Council Institute of Medicine et al., 1996; O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009) who have advocated that models of healthy development hold the key to both health promotion and prevention of problem behaviors.
