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).
LR>>Probably a distinction without a difference for us. However, think process...
ReplyDeleteYou 'intervene' to disrupt/interrupt a process already underway -- one that leads to a negative outcome. 'Prevention' keeps process from starting by changing something about social-ecological context (i.e., exposure/opportunity for different experiences; change in social interactions; different knowledge/competencies; etc.
LR>>Just occurred to me...
ReplyDeleteYou might frame the intervention/prevention distinction in context of evolving state (public) policy/responsibility for children (i.e., the parens patriae doctrine; best source on this history is book, Broken Promises, by Grubb and Lazerson). The doctrine is based on family (parenting) failure wherein the 'state' 'intervenes' by taking custody of the kid (wards of the state and protective custody/services) when its determined that the child is at risk for negative outcomes. The evolving shift from intervention to prevention based on an efficiency argument -- costs less long term to prevent a problem than to fix it. The evolution also marks shift from one factor/problem focus to thinking more comprehensively about building range of competencies/skills -- the shift to focus to an asset-based orientation to development.
Grubb, W. Norton, and Marvin Lazerson. 1988. Broken Promises: How Americans Fail Their Children. Univ of Chicago Pr (Tx), June.