Catalano et al.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To examine the convergence in the critiques and recommendations for the future
of programs to promote healthy development and prevent problem behaviors among children
and adolescents. Methods: A review of literature captures two streams of thought, those
promoting positive youth development approaches to youth programming and those
promoting prevention science approaches to youth programming. Results: Results suggest
that advocates of positive youth development and prevention science have similar critiques
of single-problem-focused prevention programs in the 1980s and early 1990s, and have
similar recommendations for the future of youth programming. Further, review of data on
youth development suggests that it is important to focus on risk and protection in preventing
adolescent problems as well as in promoting positive youth development. Conclusions:
These results suggest that both youth development and prevention science approaches have
grown from similar roots and make similar recommendations for the future of youth
programming. Further, data on precursors suggest that focusing on promoting protection and
reducing risk is likely to prevent problems and promote positive youth development. Yet
advocates of these approaches often are at odds, suggesting that the approaches provide
different paradigmatic approaches to youth programming. We conclude that cooperation
between these two approaches would further progress in the field of youth programming.
Geschiedenis van preventiebenaderingen
Preventionfocused approaches began to emerge over the past two decades; these
approaches were designed to support families, schools, and communities before the
emergence of problem behaviors in children. Increasingly, investigators and service
providers in the youth prevention and promotion field have sought to address the
circumstances of children’s lives thought to be responsible for producing problem
behaviors. Often growing from earlier treatment efforts, most prevention programs
focused on the prevention of a single problem behavior. Often, results of outcome
studies showed that they had little positive effect on problem behaviors such as drug
use, pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, dropping out of school, or engaging in
violent or delinquent behavior.
A key development in the field occurred as investigators and service providers began
to incorporate the evaluative information and apply it to interrupting the processes
that lead to problem behaviors. Increasingly, longitudinal studies provided the ability
to identify predictors of problem behaviors in youth. Then increasingly, a second
generation of prevention efforts emerged that focused on proximal (the more closely
related) predictors of the development of specific problem behaviors. Examples of
these proximal predictors are peer influences to engage in problem behaviors, such
as drug use or early sexual activity, and norms favorable to engaging in such
behaviors. Often, these prevention efforts were guided by theories about how people
make decisions and the intervention focus was on changing the antecedents (factors
occurring before other events in a sequence).
In the 1980s concerns began to be raised about prevention efforts that focused only
on a single problem behavior, rather than the promotion of healthy development, and
ignoring factors that promote positive youth development. Consensus began building
that a successful transition to adulthood requires far more than avoiding drugs,
violence, or precocious sexual activity: the promotion of children’s social and
emotional development is important in preventing the problem behaviors.
Two currents of work in the 1990s have further defined the emerging field: positive
youth development and prevention science.
o Prevention science research suggests that preventive interventions should
seek to reduce risk factors and to enhance protective factors.
o Others have proposed that preventive interventions focused on enhancing
positive youth development, enhancing protective factors, and promoting
resilience will produce positive outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To examine the convergence in the critiques and recommendations for the future
of programs to promote healthy development and prevent problem behaviors among children
and adolescents. Methods: A review of literature captures two streams of thought, those
promoting positive youth development approaches to youth programming and those
promoting prevention science approaches to youth programming. Results: Results suggest
that advocates of positive youth development and prevention science have similar critiques
of single-problem-focused prevention programs in the 1980s and early 1990s, and have
similar recommendations for the future of youth programming. Further, review of data on
youth development suggests that it is important to focus on risk and protection in preventing
adolescent problems as well as in promoting positive youth development. Conclusions:
These results suggest that both youth development and prevention science approaches have
grown from similar roots and make similar recommendations for the future of youth
programming. Further, data on precursors suggest that focusing on promoting protection and
reducing risk is likely to prevent problems and promote positive youth development. Yet
advocates of these approaches often are at odds, suggesting that the approaches provide
different paradigmatic approaches to youth programming. We conclude that cooperation
between these two approaches would further progress in the field of youth programming.
Geschiedenis van preventiebenaderingen
Preventionfocused approaches began to emerge over the past two decades; these
approaches were designed to support families, schools, and communities before the
emergence of problem behaviors in children. Increasingly, investigators and service
providers in the youth prevention and promotion field have sought to address the
circumstances of children’s lives thought to be responsible for producing problem
behaviors. Often growing from earlier treatment efforts, most prevention programs
focused on the prevention of a single problem behavior. Often, results of outcome
studies showed that they had little positive effect on problem behaviors such as drug
use, pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, dropping out of school, or engaging in
violent or delinquent behavior.
A key development in the field occurred as investigators and service providers began
to incorporate the evaluative information and apply it to interrupting the processes
that lead to problem behaviors. Increasingly, longitudinal studies provided the ability
to identify predictors of problem behaviors in youth. Then increasingly, a second
generation of prevention efforts emerged that focused on proximal (the more closely
related) predictors of the development of specific problem behaviors. Examples of
these proximal predictors are peer influences to engage in problem behaviors, such
as drug use or early sexual activity, and norms favorable to engaging in such
behaviors. Often, these prevention efforts were guided by theories about how people
make decisions and the intervention focus was on changing the antecedents (factors
occurring before other events in a sequence).
In the 1980s concerns began to be raised about prevention efforts that focused only
on a single problem behavior, rather than the promotion of healthy development, and
ignoring factors that promote positive youth development. Consensus began building
that a successful transition to adulthood requires far more than avoiding drugs,
violence, or precocious sexual activity: the promotion of children’s social and
emotional development is important in preventing the problem behaviors.
Two currents of work in the 1990s have further defined the emerging field: positive
youth development and prevention science.
o Prevention science research suggests that preventive interventions should
seek to reduce risk factors and to enhance protective factors.
o Others have proposed that preventive interventions focused on enhancing
positive youth development, enhancing protective factors, and promoting
resilience will produce positive outcomes.
