Successful Prevention and Youth Development Programs: Across Borders
Ferrer-Wreder, Laura and Stattin, Håkan and Lorente, Carolyn C. et al. (2004).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 320 pages. $69.95. ISBN 0306481766.
One strength of the book is its interdisciplinary scope. The authors present research from the broad range of fields concerned with youth development, including education, mental health, juvenile justice, and child care. Because of the specificity of program descriptions this information is useful not just for scholars but also for practitioners and policymakers who design or evaluate programs. The resource guide at the end, which provides detailed examples of intervention programs and a list of websites from around the world, is a valuable resource for those who wish to consult with others before designing a new program from scratch.
A second strength of the book is its effort to organize its presentation of findings within an ecological-developmental framework, which situates individual behaviors in a broader context of family, school, and community (Bronfenbrenner 1979). Each of these contexts comprises a separate section of the book. Depending on the reader’s particular goals, the book is set up so that it is easy to find the ecological context of interest.
It is heartening to learn that across these different contexts the authors found programs that had made a positive impact on the life trajectories of children and youth. For example, home visitation programs for families with infants have shown positive results that endured several years after program completion in both the U.S. and Netherlands. Results included less use of social services (in the U.S.), fewer hospitalizations for children, and enduring positive changes in the child’s attachment style. In the school context, the authors describe exemplary peer-related interventions concerning alcohol abuse, in which peer-led discussions led to greater reductions in risk behavior than the teacher-led format. Finally, in the community context, the authors report promising results from communities where residents mobilized to provide recreation centers for youth and/or restrict access to alcohol and tobacco.
A theme that runs throughout the review is evidence in support of programs that emphasize participant empowerment. In contrast to program models that treat participants as deficient in some way and rely on the expertise of professional care-givers, the authors highlight programs that adopt a respectful and collegial attitude toward youth and adults. This change mirrors youth development strategies in the United States, which have shifted to emphasize the strengths and assets that young people have as a basis for development and resiliency, rather than treating youth merely as problems in need of help (Eccles and Gootman 2003; Larson 2000). Similarly, the book effectively highlights programs that aim not just at eradicating a particular “problem behavior,” such as substance abuse or conduct disorder, but instead help participants develop wide-ranging competencies that enable them to thrive.
One minor criticism of the book pertains to its layout. Given the authors’ goals of reaching practitioners as well as scholars, it is unfortunate that the narrative does not include tables or executive summaries that clearly synthesize key findings. Although each chapter has a section describing “exemplary programs,” even these are at a level of detail that requires close reading. It would have been particularly helpful to pull out shared practices that distinguish such programs and place them in a table or summary statement.
A second, more substantive criticism pertains to the broader “intervention” discourse of which this book is a part, which often treats individual behavior as the unit of change, with minimal attention to changing the broader social context (e.g., Bolland 2003). Youth development policies in the United States are often guilty of ignoring social and environmental toxins in hopes that a particular program will inoculate participants (Ginwright and James 2002). But discrete programs can only do so much in a climate where funding for schools is limited (Noguera 2003), reliable sources of employment have fled to other states (Wilson 1996), and neighborhoods lack affordable health care and other resources for health and well-being (Brooks-Gunn, Ducan, Klebanov and Sealnad 1997). Connell, Gambone and Smith (1999) write that youth development advocates “unintentionally created an expectation that youth-serving organizations can provide on their own—without the involvement of families, neighbors, schools, and other institutions—experiences that are necessary and sufficient for youth to reach a healthy, productive adulthood” (p. 284).
Although Ferrer-Wreder and colleagues deserve credit for making a similar point in their explanation of the limited “durability” of some program effects (p. 98), I am still concerned that these program evaluations may sustain that false expectation. The authors could have placed greater emphasis on the notion that many of the problems discussed are at root public health problems for which individual interventions offer only a limited solution. I give just one example of this distinction from studies of suicide behavior among aboriginal teenagers in Canada (Chandler and Lalonde 1998): youth in tribal communities that had control over their institutions, such as police, schools, and health care, had almost zero risk of suicide, whereas those youth living in communities without tribal control had suicide rates up to 100 times the provincial average. The relevant variable, apparently, had to do with levels of community control and self-determination, rather than the efficacy of one mental health intervention versus another.
Despite my concern about the broader discourse of intervention programs, I highly recommend this book to those interested in understanding the features of social programs that positively impact young people across international contexts. The international comparison is especially powerful because it underlines the stark contrast between European nations and the United States in their commitments to family and child welfare. As I write this review, I learn that the proposed United States budget for 2006 will cut roughly 300,000 people from eligibility for food stamps and cut child-care support for 300,000 children (Krugman 2005). Initiatives for youth, such as after-school programs that offer tutoring and mentoring, are under increasing pressure to demonstrate quantified, “scientifically” valid benefits to program participants (Kane 2004). Given such a climate, this book represents an important contribution because it provides the kind of outcome-based evidence that policymakers sometimes find compelling.1 Such evidence, especially that which shows the importance of ecological factors, can be cited to marshal resources to address pressing social problems. The authors point out, for example, that it was only in the past century that free, high quality education came to be seen as a universal right, and there is no reason why resources for “prevention and promotion” (p. 72) should not also be viewed similarly.
Endnote
1. Based on the response of the Bush administration to research on sex education programs, for example, it is unclear if even the most rigorous scientific evidence will find willing listeners when it contradicts conservative policy aims. Bush seeks a $38 million increase in programs promoting sexual abstinence (Pear 2005), despite evidence presented in this book (p. 180) and elsewhere of the benefits of contraception-oriented sex education.
References
Bolland, J. (2003). “Hopelessness and Risk Behavior among Adolescents Living in High-Poverty Inner-City Neighborhoods.” Journal of Adolescence 26: 145-158.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J., G.J. Ducan, P. Klebanov and N. Sealand (1997). “Do Neighborhoods Influence Child and Adolescent Development?” American Journal of Sociology 99(2): 353-395.
Chandler, M.J. and C.E. Lalonde (1998). Cultural Continuity as a Hedge against Suicide in Canada’s First Nations.” Transcultural Psychiatry 35(2): 193-211.
Eccles J., and J.A. Gootman, eds. (2002). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Ginwright, S. and T. James (2002). “From Assets to Agents of Change: Social Justice, Organizing, and Youth Development.” New Directions for Youth Development 96(winter): 27-46.
Kane, T.J. (2004). The Impact of After-School Programs: Interpreting the Results of Four Recent Evaluations. Working paper for the William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved on January 5, 2005 from http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org/
Krugman, P. (2005). “Bush’s Class-War Budget.” New York Times. Retrieved February 11, 2005 from http://www.nytimes.com
Larson, R.W. (2000). “Toward a Psychology of Positive Youth Development.” American Psychologist 55(1): 170-183.
Noguera, P. (2003). City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pear, R. (2005). “Bush Budget Calls for Cuts in Health Services.” New York Times. Retrieved February 11, 2005 from http://www.nytimes.com
Super, C.M . and S. Harkness (1986). “The Developmental Niche: A Conceptualization at the Interface of Child and Culture.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 9: 545-569.
Wilson, W.J. (1996). When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Reviewer Information
University of Colorado, Boulder
Ben Kirshner received his Ph.D. in education from Stanford University. He is currently an assistant professor in the School of Education at the University of Colorado, where he teaches courses in adolescent development and education. His research interests include adolescent development in out-of-school settings, youth activism, and youth-adult research partnerships.