The following three research projects studied the effectiveness of a variety of positive youth development programs:

• Common Elements of Success. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Ph.D., and William H. Foster, Ph.D., at Columbia University reviewed the available evidence on the effectiveness of youth development programs. They found that few good evaluations of these programs existed at the time of the review. But they gleaned a common set of factors among the most successful youth development programs, including:
  • Making available a flexible range of activities and supports that address the needs and characteristics of youth.
  • Linking youth with a caring adult.
  • Sustaining these efforts over time.
  Brooks-Gunn and Foster concluded that that youth development programming for adolescents showed promise of positive returns in terms of health-related outcomes such as prevention of substance abuse and related behavioral health problems among teens. The evidence, however, was not definitive, especially because the youth development programs reviewed were small scale. (See Program Results on ID# 035504.)
• Meta-Analysis of Evaluations of School-Based Programs. A meta-analysis of more than 200 school-based drug prevention programs by Social Capital Development Corporation concluded that comprehensive life-skills programs were not more effective than social-influences programs at all grade levels and with all types and levels of substance use.
  
  Comprehensive life skills programs teach skills such as assertiveness, decision-making and goal setting while social influences programs focus on helping young people resist the direct and indirect pressures to use substances.
  
  The meta-analysis also did not find any difference between the effectiveness of interactive programs (which foster interpersonal skills and active engagement between students and teachers) and non-interactive programs (which are lecture oriented and stress drug knowledge) across all grade levels. (See Program Results on ID# 040928).
  
  These findings on interactive vs. non-interactive programs contradict those of another meta-analysis, conducted by Tobler Associates (see Program Results on ID#034433.) However, this is explained by an improvement in the precision of the meta-analytic methods used by the two studies. As a result, researchers in the Social Capital Development Corporation study were better able to identify the elements of drug prevention programs that truly affect outcomes.
• Indicators of Adolescent Well-Being. The National Academy of Sciences held a planning session to address gaps in tracking adolescent well-being. Previous assessments of well-being have focused primarily on young children. To the extent that adolescents have been studied, the focus of studies has generally been on documenting delinquency, substance abuse or other problems. The attendees identified high-priority actions, including recommending the development of indicators of safety and security that focus specifically on adolescents 10 to 14 years old. (See Program Results on ID# 030196.)
• Assessment Tool for Adolescents in Justice System. RJWF supported the development of the Youth Competency Assessment, a strengths-based assessment tool available for use by juvenile justice departments nationwide.
  
  The tool allows juvenile justice agencies to use innovative youth substance-abuse treatment models that incorporate strengths-based approaches. The approaches focus on the gifts, positive attributes and capabilities of youth, families and communities rather than only on problems and risk factors. The tool was pilot tested in three counties in Oregon. (See Program Results on ID# 039311.)