ALA Visit-W

Last Thursday we finally got the chance to see the ALA staff in action with the kids. Unfortunately, little went to plan, but it was still nice to get some "boots on the ground" time.
The initial plan was to do a science experiment, but due to some vigorous high-fiving, eggs, a crucial component of the experiment, were destroyed. So instead we talked about bullying, and then played a dodgeball variant outside. Here are some of my observations:
At least one of the ALA staff at W did not "dummy down" their speech when talking to the kids. They read about bullying from a handout that contained some pretty sophisticated vocabulary. The staff member also mentioned rape and sexual assault, things that I personally could not have conceived of in middle school. I don't mean this observation to be negative necessarily, but I wasn't sure how much the kids understood of what the staff member said.
I was also struck by ultimately how little time we had...ALA programming didn't really start until about 4, if I recall correctly, because of snack and another extracurricular activity. I'm not sure if that is typical or not. The staff seemed to stress that it was an un-typical day, due to the Egg Catastrophe and the No Tardy Party, so I am hesitant to really draw any conclusions from what I saw so briefly.

Environment, more tangible, -structured curriculum (Catalano) Blurb Part 2

Drawing from Bundy and Restuccia PYD Lit Review.
The best positive youth development programs also feature some sort of improvement program, both on the organization and individual staff levels. This allows the staff to have a say in increasing the programs' effectiveness and also aims at improving the skills and abilities of the individual staff members (Bundy and Restuccia 4).
Related to the idea of program evolution and improvement, another important structural component of successful positive youth development programs is their ability to pour funds flexibly into different program components in response to changing wants and needs. Programs that have to go through a lengthy bureaucratic progress to reallocate resources or that must keep different money streams separate may have difficulty reacting in a timely and effective manner. 
On the environmental level, positive youth development programs must also possess "high, clear, and fair standards"  and "safe, reliable, and accessible activities and spaces" (4). Not only do these components serve as inducements for youth to come and keep coming to the program, they also lead directly to positive personal growth for the youth.

Environment, more tangible, -structured curriculum (Catalano) Blurb Part 1

One of the most important aspects of any positive youth development program is its curriculum structure. Catalano's study of program effectiveness found that "twenty-four (96 percent) of the well-evaluated effective programs incorporated a structured curriculum or program of activities" (116). The one successful program that did not have a structured curriculum, the well-known Big Brothers/Big Sisters, is based on positive interactions with the mentor instead of a lesson-based learning curriculum. However, having a formal curriculum makes the program more easily replicable in the context of a different community.
Duration of the program is also a key factor related to its effectiveness. Eighty percent of the most effective programs in the same study lasted nine months or more (Catalano 116).

Just as youth development has evolved to mean more than the treatment of already-present problem behaviors, so there has been some oscillation between prevention and intervention.

Intervention programs, seeking mainly to address existing crises, predated prevention programs by some two decades (Catalano 99). However, in the last ten to fifteen years, concurrent with the emergent emphasis on positive youth development, the idea of prevention programs has become an important facet of youth development. In Roth’s study, fully 92% of the programs purported to feature activities aimed at the prevention of high-risk behaviors. Nonetheless, youth development advocates now “recognize that activities focused solely on the prevention of problem behaviors, such as violence or substance abuse, do not necessarily equip adolescents with the tools for a responsible and productive adulthood” (Roth, 97). Prevention programs, as opposed to intervention programs, are designed to change youths' projected life course, either by adding competency, experience, interactions, or some other ingredients.

Implicit in the discussion of prevention and intervention is the notion of critical periods. Also known as sensitive or etiological periods, these are the stages of development or ages when identity is formed, and risk and protective factors are most influential. By extension, critical periods also represent the most opportune or beneficial times for staging interventions or experiencing prevention programming. Researchers have developed various life course paradigms, which posit and chart when these critical periods occur. Berkman discusses three (33-36).

The first is the latency model, which is based on "critical or sensitive periods in which early childhood or even prenatal exposures shape subsequent outcomes that may or may not be evident for years" (33). This model is supported by experiments with rats--some handled and some not handled in early life. The rats in the two groups remained similar in behavior and development until midlife/older age, when "the nonhandled rats developed significant cognitive impairment and simultaneously had higher levels of corticosterone"(34) (corticosterone is one of those "stress hormones" diet supplement commercials are always pestering us about).
       The second life course paradigm is cumulative exposure, based on the idea that, in the absence of critical periods, life experiences simply have a cumulative effect, so repeated exposure to something would cause significant shaping of behavior or development (33). This model is supported by empirical evidence from studies that link prolonged periods of economic disadvantage to increased risk of disease, for example heart disease (35). It's important to note that the cumulative exposure paradigm "argues that changes in adulthood to modify risk or prevent the onset of risk will partially offset the risks set by trajectories in early childhood (35).
       The final model in Berkman's paper is social trajectory, which contends "that early life exposures do not directly affect adult health. They influence adult social conditions, which, in turn, affect adult health. In this case, intervention in adulthood can completely offset harm incurred in childhood" (36). An example of this paradigm is related to occupational hazards. Early life experiences, such as education and class, put people on the track to more or less hazardous jobs, which results in more or less exposure to contaminants, risk of death, stress, etc. These risks can be undone with an adult intervention to change the workplace (36).

2 Page Contribution For Paper

            The prevention of problem behaviors is just one aspect of positive youth development programs. In Roth’s study, fully 92% of the programs purported to feature activities aimed at the prevention of high-risk behaviors. Nonetheless, youth development advocates now “recognize that activities focused solely on the prevention of problem behaviors, such as violence or substance abuse, do not necessarily equip adolescents with the tools for a responsible and productive adulthood” (Roth, 97). The same study showed that the youth development programs surveyed were just as concerned with competency building as with prevention.

            Intervention programs, seeking mainly to address existing crises in youth behavior, predated prevention programs by some two decades (Catalano 99). However, in the last ten to fifteen years, the line between prevention and intervention has blurred considerably, to the extent that the phrase “preventive intervention” has emerged as a useable term for what was once strictly prevention. Another example of this growing overlap is Catalano’s contention that “Strategies to promote positive bonding combined with the development of skills have proven to be an effective intervention for adolescents at risk for antisocial behavior” (102). WHY IS THAT INTERVENTION AND NOT PREVENTiON? Is now a bad time to realize I apparently don't understand the difference?

Implicit in the discussion of prevention and intervention is the notion of critical periods. Also known as sensitive or etiological periods, these are the stages of development or ages when identity is formed, and risk and protective factors are most influential. By extension, critical periods also represent the most opportune or beneficial times for staging interventions or experiencing prevention programming. Researchers have developed various life course paradigms, which posit and chart when these critical periods occur. Berkman discusses three (33-36).

Prevention/Intervention

Berkman, "Social Epidemiology: Social Determinants of Health in the United States: Are We Losing Ground?" (on Zotero for your reference)

This article, framed from the public health perspective, focuses on a) life course paradigms as they relate to interventions (if you don't know what a "life course paradigm" is, don't worry, I'll explain below/in class) and b) influences on and determinants of population health.

The impetus for this work was the realization that, despite observational studies which show, for example that heart attack patients "with low levels of social support and weak networks and high levels of depression were at substantial risk" of more heart attacks and death, the results of intervention programs showed either no effect or even slight harm (32). This led Berkman to examining life course paradigms more closely.

The three paradigms are:
1) Latency: based on "critical or sensitive periods in which early childhood or even prenatal exposures shape subsequent outcomes that may or may not be evident for years" (33). This model is supported by experiments with rats--some handled and some not handled in early life. The rats in the two groups remained similar in behavior and development until midlife/older age, when "the nonhandled rats developed significant cognitive impairment and simultaneously had higher levels of corticosterone"(34) (corticosterone is one of those "stress hormones" diet supplement commercials are always pestering us about).
2. Cumulative exposure: based on the idea that, in the absence of critical periods, life experiences simply have a cumulative effect, so repeated exposure to something would cause significant shaping of behavior or development (33). This model is supported by empirical evidence from studies that link prolonged periods of economic disadvantage to increased risk of disease, for example heart disease (35). It's important to note that the cumulative exposure paradigm "argues that changes in adulthood to modify risk or prevent the onset of risk will partially offset the risks set by trajectories in early childhood (35).
3. Social trajectory: contends "that early life exposures do not directly affect adult health. They
influence adult social conditions, which, in turn, affect adult health. In this case, intervention in
adulthood can completely offset harm incurred in childhood" (36). An example of this paradigm at work (haha, punny) is related to occupational hazards. Early life experiences, such as education and class, put people on the track to more or less hazardous jobs, which results in more or less exposure to contaminants, risk of death, stress, etc. These risks can be undone with an adult intervention to change the workplace (36).

The common thread in all of these paradigms is that they seek to identify critical, sensitive, or etiological periods during which intervention would be most effective.

The prevention paradox: illustrated by Rose, it demonstrates that "a large number of people with a relatively modest risk may produce more cases of disease than would a small number of people
at high risk" and therefore prevention should focus on the whole population and not just those perceived to be at highest risk. However, Berkman acknowledges the impracticability of such strategies most of the time (shown through statistics, which I can talk about if you really want me to haha).

The Challenges of Terminology

No wonder we've been having trouble operationally defining many key words: every five or ten years a new study comes out, critiquing the way some fundamental concept is understood. I'm all for nuance, but how are we supposed to be able to nail the Jello to the wall?

Back to Basics

"What Exactly Is a Youth Development Program?" Brooks-Gunn and Roth. (uploaded to Zotero group)

It occurred to me this week that I might be putting the cart before the horse in trying to grapple with operational definitions of capital or competence or what have you, when according to this article, the operational definition of "youth development" is not at all clear. The writers point to three studies designed to evaluate youth development programs: all three used different operational definitions of "youth development" to determine what programs to include in their study. Brooks and Roth also note that none of these three studies addresses the question of "why the programs succeeded" (95). I do kind of disagree with that assertion. One study referenced was the Catalano article I read a few weeks ago. That study did, in my opinion, attempt to compare the successful programs to find similarities across the breadth and width of options available. If all successful programs share in common three or four traits, would that not point to an implied "optimal" set of characteristics? In the Catalano article, however, the researchers were comparing "development objectives, such as promoting bonding, fostering social, emotional, cognitive, behavioral or moral competence, or fostering prosocial norms" (Roth, 95) across successful programs, not the programs themselves (i.e. not trying to determine if literacy programs were more effective than sports).

The crux of the article, however, is the authors' claim that there are "three characteristics that theory and ethnographic research suggest set youth development programs apart from other types of programs
for adolescents...program goals, program atmosphere, and program activities" (97). They continue:

"The goals of youth development programs promote positive development, even when seeking to prevent problem behaviors...The positive, youth-centered atmosphere conveys the adults’ belief in youth as resources to be developed rather than problems to be managed...Program activities provide formal and informal opportunities for youth to nurture their interests and talents, practice new skills, and gain a sense of personal or group recognition" (97-98).

Based on this, a functional definition of "youth development program" might be "a program in which the goal is to promote positive development through activities providing challenges and active participation in a youth-centered atmosphere." Of course, that definition still contains the phrase "positive development" which might be somewhat ambiguous. I mean "promoting the growth of capital" as opposed to "preventing problem behaviors."

Hello, Pretty Syncness!

...Zotero is now reflecting the changes y'all made in class today! Apparently there's just a big lag. Let me know if any of you are still having problems. :-)

Resilient Plants and Ecological Youth Development

Text: Folke, et al. "Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformation." (a simple Google search will allow you to access a PDF)
I chose this article because the title mentioned resilience and capacity, two themes we mentioned during class last week.

The Social-Ecological System is an important concept in this article, and I'll be honest, I had some trouble wrapping my head around it--maybe because it has been outside the realm of my experience to think of ecosystems as human habitats as well (even though I had a cerebral understanding that humans were a part of ecosystems, too). Broadly speaking, the social-ecological system refers to the set of interactions between humans and nature. Within this domain, "resilience" is meant to describe "(a) the magnitude of shock that the system can absorb and remain within a given state, (b) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, and (c) the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation" (7). However, for our purposes, I don't think we're so concerned with human-nature interactions (although a good nature hike, like good music, can work wonders for soothing the savage breast). Therefore, my focus for this article was to try to distill principles of resilience and vulnerability that could be transformed from the social-ecological system domain, to a domain more relevant to our pursuits. With that in mind, lets reexamine the article's definition of "resilience" and substitute something else for "system": (a) the magnitude of shock that the [individual/family/community] can absorb and remain within a given state, (b) the degree to which the [individual/family/community]  is capable of self-organization, and (c) the degree to which the [individual/family/community] can build capacity for learning and adaptation.
The article goes on to indicate that resilience is linked to diversity, including diversity "of human opportunity" (8). Diversity of experience builds resilience because, while surprise is inevitable, exposure to novel situations makes surprise less daunting and more manageable: "Managing for resilience enhances the likelihood of sustaining development in changing environments where the future is unpredictable and surprise is likely" (13).
On the flip side is vulnerability. In the words of the article, vulnerability is "...the propensity of social and ecological system [sic] to suffer harm from exposure to external stresses and shocks" (13). Building coping or adaptive capacity is key to overcoming vulnerability and establishing resilience. Adaptive capacity is "the ability of a social-ecological system to cope with novel situations without losing options for the future" (17). The article identifies four factors that contribute to this ability: "learning to live with change and uncertainty; nurturing diversity for resilience; combining different types of knowledge for learning; and creating opportunity for self-organization towards socialecological sustainability" (18). All four are easily adapted to our context. However, from there the article gravitates more specifically toward biodiversity and case studies of overfishing, etc., so this article's utility seems mostly tied up in getting some of these words added to our vocabularies.

On Ethical Human Research

Over the weekend I completed the IRB training module online. It made me feel like I was being productive despite the fact that I pretty much let my brain languish all weekend and then began trying to pick up the pieces sometime yesterday afternoon.
At its most basic, the module focused on two things: why we need standards of ethical research and a governing body to uphold them, and what those standards are (primarily based on the idea of informed consent). The module teaches about some blatantly unethical experiments conducted in the past 60 or 70 years: Nazi experiments during WWII, thalidomide, and the Tuskegee syphilis study. I didn't need to take an online training course to figure out that those studies were appalling.
The second part goes through the evolution of the nuts and bolts rules governing research with human subjects. Some aspects were interesting and not necessarily intuitive, like obtaining informed consent from minors and persons of diminished mental capacity. Others had to do with conflicts of interest, like who can contribute how much funding to a study of a drug's efficacy.
Overall, most of the module taught things that the majority of people with a moral compass that points somewhere in the general northerly direction could've figured out with little difficulty. Still, having such things institutionalized does provide a greater inducement for conducting ethical research than appealing to some amorphous corpus of social mores.
There was no "quiz;" it just has you login to UT Direct and put in the date and type of training your completed. So if you've been putting this off 'cause you don't like tests, have no fear.
Another post to come later today dealing with some more literature.

Catalano, et al., "Positive Youth Development Programs"

I'm going to begin this entry on a seemingly tangential topic: the American cinema. I wasn't alive to observe child and adolescent behavior in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, so regrettably most of what I know comes from such brilliant works of art as Pleasantville, Dirty Dancing, Caddyshack and basically every dance movie John Travolta ever made. Surprisingly, then, most of what I read in the Catalano piece jives (no pun intended) with what I thought I knew from my forays into popular culture's depictions of youth of the past. Films set more than 30 years in the past depict freewheeling booty-dancing teens trying valiantly to overcome the efforts of the town's elders to stop the dancing/sexing/whatever problem behavior is going on. Not surprisingly, these efforts failed in every similarly formulaic film I've ever seen.
According to the article, "prevention approaches began to emerge three decades ago." I tried to think of a historical event that might account for this timing. Catalano seems to indicate that this development was more related to the emergence of scholarship supporting the efficacy of programs targeting not the behaviors themselves, but the predictors of those behaviors. Thus, over time, the trend has been a broadening of the areas under the umbrella of youth development: from the individual youth to examinations at the family, school, and community levels; from the problem behavior to a variety of areas encompassing physical, mental, emotional, moral and even spiritual well-being; and from simply "forbidding the wrong" (i.e. fixing "problem behaviors") to "commanding the right" (i.e. actively encouraging positive behaviors).