You are on page 1of 3

INYR.Vienna.

2009
David Hansen
United States

Title: Understanding the “Development” in Youth Development: Applications for Practice,


Policy, and Professionalization of Youth Work

This presentation will synthesize recent empirical findings from both neuroscience and
youth development on what we currently know about how youth learn and develop in organized
youth programs. The goal of this synthesis will be to suggest applications to youth worker
practice, youth work policy, and the professionalization (or legitimization) of youth work.
Understanding how youth develop in youth programs, I argue, is the key to practice, policy, and
professionalization.

Synthesis of Recent Research on Youth Development


Neuroscience. The rapidly expanding literature on neuropsychology points to
adolescence as a ‘critical period’ during which the brain integrates cognitions and emotions into
a consciously controlled “executive suite” (Keating, 2004; Steinberg, 2005, Yurgelun-Todd,
2007). The executive suite is responsible for most of the higher-order skills and competencies
characteristic of real-world adult functioning, such as strategic long-term planning, self-
direction, collaboration, initiative, working in complex systems, and civic identity.
Developmental experience is crucial both for the growth of these executive functions and for
how the integration takes place, e.g., how synaptic pruning occurs (Griedd, et al., 1999).
Heightened cognitive-affective arousal among adolescents supports development of these adult-
typical executive functions (Keating, 2004), but similar to development in early childhood lack
of relevant experiences for youth may delay or stunt development of adult-typical executive
functions. What “experiences” are needed and where are youth most likely to get the?
Development in organize youth programs. Research and theory suggest organized youth
programs may be the context in adolescent’s lives best suited to support the development of
these real-world adult competencies and assets (Forum for Youth Investment, 2003; NRC, 2002;
Heath, 1998; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997). In many youth programs in the United States
adolescents can engage in activities that mimic adult worlds: activities require adapting to
constraints of time, money, and will, strategic planning for long term goals, authentic evaluation
of performance (Larson, Hansen, & Walker, 2005; Heath, 1994, 1998; Larson, 2000). Out of
these activities youth begin learning to regulate their effort, time, and emotions, deal with
unexpected events, maintain consistency in performance over time, and work with seemingly
irrational “human systems”, including peers (Heath, 1998, 1999; Larson & Hansen, 2005;
Larson, Hansen, & Walker, 2005; Larson & Walker, 2006).
At present there is mounting empirical evidence about what constitutes youth program
quality (Granger, Durlak, Yohalem, & Reisner, 2007; Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2007;
Yohalem, Wilson-Ahlstrom, Fischer, & Shinn, 2009), the range and types of developmental
experiences that occur in youth programs (Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003; Larson, Hansen,
& Moneta, 2006), factors that “amplify” or promote development (Hansen & Larson, 2007;
Simpkins, Little, & Weiss, 2004), and outcomes associated with program participation, such as
academic achievement and adult civic engagement (Eccles & Templeton, 2002; Glancy, Willits,
& Farrell, 1986; Durlak & Weissberg, 2007).

Application for Practice, Policy, and Professionalization


Converging empirical evidence on youth development and on how adolescence is a
critical period for the development of higher-ordered adult-typical thinking and behavior
suggests application to practice, policy, and professionalization.
Practice. There is consistent agreement among youth workers and researchers about the
importance of program quality for youth development—how the youth worker interacts with the
participants of the program. We do not yet know how different aspects of program quality, such
as creating a supportive or caring environment, directly affect specific types of development (like
civic identity or initiative). There should be a substantial “pay off” in terms of youth outcomes
from focusing on increasing the quality youth programs.
Policy. There is fairly widespread opinion in the United States that in order for today’s
youth to thrive as adults in the 21st century they will need a fairly complex set of skills,
competencies, and assets. While official youth work policy is absent in the U.S., the emergent
empirical findings strongly suggest a need for policy to encourage youth development. It is
becoming clearer that rich developmental experience is important, if not essential, for
adolescents to develop adult-typical ways of functioning. It is also clear that schools are not a
typical setting where youth have these essential developmental experiences: organized youth
activities seem to provide the essential “developmental nutrients”. Thus, there is a need for
policy that recognizes this non-school setting as an important contributor to youth becoming
integrated into adult society. I suggest U.S. should look to European and other counties for
guidance in this area as they already have policies in place that acknowledge the youth work—
adult citizenship link.
Youth work professionalization. There is mounting pressure to justify expenditures for
what many in the United States consider “non-essential” programs, including those for youth that
occur outside of the school setting. Thus, now more than ever it is imperative that researchers
and youth workers labor to provide evidence of the value of youth programs. The separate lines
of research—neuroscience and youth development—I suggest provide support for justifying the
professionalization of the youth work field, but it will not be easy in this time of economic
downturn. I am suggesting three avenues to pursue that will lead to professionalization.
First, researchers and youth workers need to partner together to document and
demonstrate the real developmental short- and long-term value of participation in youth
programs. This partnership, I contend, can lead to strong empirical evidence of the cognitive and
behavioral benefits (e.g., executive suite functioning) attributable to participation in youth
programs. Youth workers need to think more like researchers and researchers need to think more
like youth workers—there needs to be a free exchange of cooperation between the two. Second,
we need research that shows “how” development occurs in youth programs. Unlike the academic
setting where government and politicians accept evidence of effectiveness as measured by
standardized tests of content knowledge, this standard, I argue, will not suffice for the youth
development field. Because youth programs are not primarily focused on academic performance,
any correlation between programs and academic indicators will be small in comparison to
schools, which exist for this specific purpose. Third, we will need to empirically demonstrate the
value of youth programs with convincing research on outcomes that increase chances of
successful integration of youth into adult society. The field of neuroscience may provide the
methods we need to accomplish this. We should be able to show (literally) the cognitive growth
that occurs from youth participating in this setting, which, when coupled with measures of these
higher-ordered executive skills and competencies, will provide the necessary evidence of the
effectiveness of the youth work field.
Far from being my “grandiose” researcher ideas, I consider the INYR and BMWFJ –
UNESCO-ICNYP to be an excellent initial step toward improving practice, policy, and the
ultimate professionalization of the field.

You might also like