being. Thriving is thought to be set in motion by the presence of “spark,” which the researchers conceptualize as “a passion for, and the exercise of action to nurture, a self-identified interest, skill, or capacity” (Benson & Scales, 2009, p.
91). In comparing youth who had spark with those who didn’t, those in the first group were significantly more advantaged on many developmental outcomes (Benson & Scales, 2009). Thus, assisting youth with development of spark and then facilitating the thriving construct as it develops is a worthwhile area of study in resilience research. Determining the origins of this spark, including examining potential factors such as environment, culture, personal strengths, and presence of role models, may result in increased positive youth development overall.
The impact of strong relationships, either with parents or other stable and consistent adults, appears to be greatly desirable in producing positive youth development. In one study, researchers measured adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ success at several variables to determine whether or not the presence of certain parental behaviors appeared to be related to positive development in their children (Napolitano et al., 2011). Results showed that adolescents who had parents who were higher on maternal warmth (e.g., “My mother speaks to me in a warm and friendly manner”); parental monitoring (e.g.,
“My parents know who my friends are”); and involvement in their school (e.g.,
“How often does one of your parents ask about your homework?”) were likely to have developed certain other positive behaviors. This highlights the important role that parents play in their children’s well-being. This said, other research shows that it does not always have to be an actual parent who assists a child in developing these good traits. Bowers and colleagues (2012) found that non- parental adults were still very influential on the development of positive
behaviors and traits. Thus, it seems that even children who do not have parents who assist them in these ways can still thrive with the help from others outside their family. In looking at individuals we have each worked with over the years, we have heard many stories of teachers, camp counselors, coaches, and family friends who have gone above and beyond their duties to provide positive mentoring and caring for children who were not biologically their own. This research shows evidence of the potential of their positive impact.
2002) is a valuable resource for the people who believe that “problem free does not mean fully prepared” (Pittman & Fleming, 1991, p. 3). Indeed, some
developmentalists focus their helpful efforts on youth who are not struggling with major life problems but who also do not possess the personal assets or environmental resources needed to reach many of their goals as they transition into adulthood. As such, the challenge in helping those who might fall through the cracks is to build the confidences and competencies in young people.
Positive youth development programs come in many forms (Benson & Saito, 2000), including structured or semistructured activities (e.g., Big Brothers and Big Sisters); organizations providing activities and positive relationships (e.g., Boy’s Club, YMCA, YWCA); socializing systems promoting growth (e.g., day care centers, school, libraries, museums); and communities facilitating the coexistence of programs, organizations, and communities. The soundness of these programs is determined by the extent to which they promote the “good”
and prevent the “bad” in today’s youth.
Programs that work help youth move toward competencies that make their lives more productive and meaningful. A brief listing of more than a dozen effective programs was developed after a critical review of published and unpublished program evaluations that included, at a minimum, the following (Catalano et al., 1998; Jamieson, 2005):
Adequate design and outcome measures
Adequate description of research methodologies Description of the population served
Description of the intervention and fidelity of implementation Effects demonstrated on behavioral outcomes
Regarding effectiveness, Catalano et al. (1998) wrote, “Programs were included if they demonstrated behavioral outcomes at any point, even if these results decayed over time. Programs were also included if they demonstrated effects on part of the population studied” (p. 26). These effective programs include some that are well known and others that are less known. For the purpose of
illustrating how some of these effective programs engage youth and cultivate
personal resources, we describe the basic operations and effects of Big Brothers and Big Sisters and the Penn Resiliency Program. We also describe some of the developmental tasks associated with a positive college experience.
Big Brothers and Big Sisters is a community-based mentoring program (3–5 contact hours per week) initiated in 1905. For no fee, the program matches low- income children and adolescents with adult volunteers who are committed to providing caring and supportive relationships. Typically, mentors are screened carefully and then provided with some training and guidelines for positively influencing youth. Mentoring activities are unstructured or semistructured, and they typically take place in the community. Regarding the effectiveness of the program, Tierney and Grossman (2000) found that this mentoring program did promote the good (academic achievement, parental trust) and prevent the bad (violence, alcohol and drug use, truancy).
The Penn Resiliency Program (Gillham & Reivich, 2004) is a highly structured life-skills development program that is offered to schoolchildren for a fee (or as part of a research study). A highly trained facilitator conducts the scripted sessions in the classroom. The 12 sessions focus on awareness of thought patterns and on modifying the explanatory style of students to change the attributions for events so that they are more flexible and accurate. Extensive evaluation of the program demonstrated its effectiveness at preventing the bad (the onset and severity of depressive symptoms) and promoting optimism and better physical health.
The Changing Lives Program (CLP; Eichas et al., 2010) is a positive youth development program that is community based and supported and has aims to be inclusive of both gender and ethnicity. In this program, facilitators work with a two-pronged approach, attempting to decrease problem behaviors while at the same time promote positive development. This program works to enhance
positive identity development while “facilitating mastery experiences” (Eichas et al., 2010, p. 213). Research has shown that this program achieves both of these goals in a diverse sample, though these researchers allowed that some of the findings may be differential at times as a result of race or gender. More research is needed with non-majority groups in order to more fully understand the impact of race, ethnicity, and gender on the applicability and design of these and future programs (Eichas et al., 2010).
Specific programs such as those just discussed are of course valuable options,
but they may not be available to all schools and thus all youth depending on multiple factors. Bundick (2011), however, asserts that other more general extracurricular activities may also promote positive youth development. In his comprehensive analysis of a number of different types of clubs and activities, Bundick found that, in particular, leadership activities and volunteering in a prosocial way predicted positive variables. Participation in leadership activities seemed to promote a development of purpose in life and a sense of a hopeful future; participation in volunteering appeared instead to contribute to overall positive development, particularly greater life satisfaction (Bundick, 2011).
These findings show that these potentially more accessible activities can also make a difference in developing positive attributes.
Foster youth systems are another group that has a vested interest in assisting positive youth development. In a study conducted by Hass and Graydon (2009), surveys were administered to individuals who had been removed from their biological parents as children but were able to “beat the odds” by completing a higher level of education than most foster youth. Results showed that several protective factors existed in the lives of these individuals as children and
adolescents including social support, involvement in community service, a sense of competence, and the possession of future goals (Hass & Graydon, 2009).
Foster youth programs that work to create and enhance relationships of support with caring adults, as well as to provide experiences for youth to give back to their communities, may see increases in resilience in this often marginalized population.
Colleges and universities, as socializing systems, also can promote positive youth development. Chickering’s work on education and identity (1969;
Chickering & Reisser, 1993) provides a set of developmental tasks that is the joint focus of college students and positive agents (student peers, faculty, and staff). Within the Chickering model, development of competence is identified as a primary developmental direction or goal for college students during their educational experiences. With increased confidence in their resourcefulness, students then begin working on the developmental tasks of managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature
interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. Progress toward each of these goals equips students to succeed in school, work, and life in general. More intentional focus on
developing colleges and universities into positive socializing systems could enhance the value of a college education for the students and society at large.
Integrating strengths development programming into the college experience also could enhance the positive effects of higher education (Lopez, Janowski, &
Wells, 2005).