Christina Theokas

Positive Youth Development, Participation in Community Youth Development Programs, and Community Contributions of Fifth-Grade Adolescents: Findings From the First Wave Of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development

The 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development (PYD), a longitudinal investigation of a diverse sample of 1,700 fifth graders and 1,117 of their parents, tests developmental contextual ideas linking PYD, youth contributions, and participation in community youth development (YD) programs, representing a key ecological asset. Using data from Wave 1 of the study, structural equation modeling procedures provided evidence for five firstorder latent factors representing the “Five Cs” of PYD (competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring) and for their convergence on a second-order PYD latent construct. A theoretical construct, youth contribution, was also created and examined. Both PYD and YD program participation independently related to contribution. The importance of longitudinal analyses for extending the present results is discussed.

Positive Youth Development A View of the Issues

The positive youth development (PYD) perspective is a strength-based conception of adolescence. Derived from developmental systems theory, the perspective stressed that PYD emerges when the potential plasticity of human development is aligned with developmental assets. The research reported in this special issue, which is derived from collaborations among multiple university and community-based laboratories, reflects and extends past theory and research by documenting empirically (a) the usefulness of applying this strength-based view of adolescent development within diverse youth and communities; (b) the adequacy of conceptualizing PYD through Five Cs (competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring); (c) the individual and ecological developmental assets associated with PYD; and (d) implications for community programs and social policies pertinent to youth.

Observed Ecological Assets in Families, Schools, and Neighborhoods: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Relations With Positive and Negative Developmental Outcomes

The relations among observed ecological assets in youths families, schools, and neighborhoods with positive and negative developmental outcomes were assessed with a sample of 646 fifth-grade youth. The majority of participants were Latino (37.5%) or European American (35.5%) and lived in 2-parent families. Ecological asset indicators were categorized into 4 dimensions: human, physical or institutional, collective activity, and accessibility and were measured equivalently across the three contexts. Different dimensions of the family, school, and neighborhood settings had the most comprehensive impact on the different developmental outcomes, specifically collective activity in the family, accessibility in school, and human resources in the neighborhood. This research establishes a baseline for the empirical inquiry into the impact of observed resources present within families, school, and neighborhoods.

Conceptualizing and Modeling Individual and Ecological Asset Components of Thriving in Early Adolescence

Using two randomly selected separate subsamples of 50,000 middle or high school students drawn from the 1999 to 2000 Search Institute Profiles of Student Life Attitudes and Behavior survey, firstand second-order factors of items assessing internal and external assets were identified. In both samples, first-order exploratory factor analyses produced 14 scales with conceptual integrity and adequate reliability, although differences were found between the middle and high school samples (e.g., further differentiation of scales). The factors in the middle school sample loaded on two second-order constructs, representing individual and ecological assets. These second-order factors accounted for unique variance in an index of thriving. The concept of developmental assets and the role of these assets in early adolescent development are discussed.

The Multiple Contexts of Youth Development: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice

Our goal for this special issue of Applied Developmental Science was to bring together articles addressing several key themes related to optimizing adolescent development through reducing risky behavior and promoting positive youth development. These themes include a focus on multiple contexts of development, the use of multidisciplinary approaches and mixed methods for understanding adolescent behavior, the inclusion of both positive and negative developmental outcomes, and attention to applied and policy implications. In other words, these articles embody a broad focus on applied developmental science (Lerner, 2004; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000). Adolescence is a time of increased risky behavior. Although some risk-taking may be a positive force in development (Baumrind, 1987; Fischhoff, 1992; Shedler & Block, 1990), risky activities such as illegal drug use and unprotected sexual intercourse can be dangerous. Risky behaviors may occur individually but are often interrelated, are often established during youth, and often extend into adulthood (Jessor, 1998). These largely preventable behaviors can lead to negative outcomes that disrupt lives and have enormous costs to society (Gans, Alexander, Chu, & Elster, 1995; Kann et al., 1996; Zimmer-Gembeck, Alexander, & Nystrom, 1997; Ziv, Boulet, & Slap, 1999). In fact, public health researchers estimate that the annual cost to the United States that is due to morbidities related to adolescent risky behavior is more than

Risk and Promotive Factors in Families, Schools, and Communities: A Contextual Model of Positive Youth Development in Adolescence

33 billion (Gans et al., 1995). More recently, however, researchers and policy makers have begun to embrace the notion that optimal youth development owes not simply to a reduction in negative behavior but the growth of strengths and competencies that will prepare youth for the future. Healthy development embodies happiness and a sense of purpose and meaningful relationships that leads to youth being engaged and contributing to their families, schools, communities, and society. Accordingly, growing attention is focused on promoting positive youth development, encouraging health-promoting behavior, and investing in resources for youth (Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Lerner & Simi, 2000). In other words, a focus on positive youth development is an active promotion of adolescents’ competence, confidence, character, caring, and connection (see, e.g., Lerner et al., 2005) through aligning these capacities with resources in the ecology. Thus, a holistic approach to optimizing adolescent development requires an understanding of factors related to both reducing negative risk-taking behavior and increasing positive, competent youth behavior. In the past two decades, significant effort has gone into developing comprehensive models of the role of multiple contextual domains (i.e., relations among individual characteristics, social relationships, and larger effects of communities and institutions) on adolescent behavior, and that include both risk and protective factors (Becker, Rankin, & Rickel, 1998; Hawkins et al., 1992; Jessor, 1998; Taylor & Wang, 2000). For example, Jessor proposed a model that includes five interrelated domains of risk and protective factors (biology and genetics, social environment, perceived environment, personality, behavior) that lead to adolescent risk behavior and lifestyles, and ultimately to healthand life-compromising outcomes. More broadly, working from the perspective of developmental systems theory and contextual psychology, researchers theorize that behaviors arise from the dynamic, bidirectional interaction between a person and multiple levels of his or her ecology (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner, 2006; Magnusson & Stattin, 2006; Petraitis, Flay, & Miller, 1995). Youth will thrive when there is a goodness of fit between individual developmental needs and contextual resources (Chess & Thomas, 1999; Lerner, Dowling, & Anderson, 2003). In addition, researchers in the field of developmental psychopathology suggest that multiple contextual factors influence both competent and risky developmental trajectories (e.g., Cicchetti & Aber, 1998; Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000; Masten & Curtis, 2000; Sroufe, 1997). Thus, there is a compelling theoretical Applied Developmental Science 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2, 58–60 Copyright