8/14/2019 INYR.vienna.2009 David Hansen United States Title:
Understanding the Development In
1/3
INYR.Vienna.2009
David HansenUnited 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 andyouth 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, andprofessionalization.
Synthesis of Recent Research on Youth Development
Neuroscience. The rapidly expanding literature on
neuropsychology points toadolescence as a critical period during
which the brain integrates cognitions andemotions 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 forhow 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 lackof 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 youthprograms may be the context in
adolescents 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 Statesadolescents 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 withunexpected 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 developmentalexperiences 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
8/14/2019 INYR.vienna.2009 David Hansen United States Title:
Understanding the Development In
2/3
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 behaviorsuggests application to
practice, policy, and professionalization.
Practice. There is consistent agreement among youth workers and
researchers about the
importance of program quality for youth developmenthow the youth
worker interacts with theparticipants 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 todays
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 isbecoming 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 atypical 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 forguidance 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 linesof researchneuroscience and youth
developmentI 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 youthprograms. Youth workers need
to think more like researchers and researchers need to think
more
like youth workersthere 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 academicsetting 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
