Community Programs to Promote Youth Development (2002)

Human development is a complex process involving many influences interacting with each other in a cumulative fashion over time. These influences range from individuals’ unique genetic makeup and genetically scripted maturational sequences to the political, historical, and cultural forces that shape the settings in which they live and mature. Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998) and others (e.g., Baltes et al., 1998; Cairns, 1998; Elder, 1998; Damon and Lerner, 1998; Magnusson and Stattin, 1998; Rutter et al., 1998) have stressed the complexity of these interacting systems in development; these complexities are described in detail in Chapter 2. These complex characteristics of development make heterogeneity the norm at both individual and social levels. At any one point in time, individuals of the same age will vary greatly in their abilities, their values and interests, their needs, and their social and institutional relationships and connections. To be successful at promoting positive youth development, community programs must find ways to both accommodate and make use of these heterogeneities.

Two other properties of human development are critical to the design of community programs for youth. First,

there are regularities in the sequence of development across time (e.g., Erikson, 1968; Piaget, 1971; Vygotsky, 1962). These regularities are assumed to result from three primary sources: (1) the genetically scripted maturational processes linked to such physical changes as brain development, sensormotor and physical maturation, and sexual maturation; (2) the logical sequences inherent in acquiring new skills and knowledge, in moving from more external (adult driven) regulation to increasingly internal regulation of behaviors and emotions, and in moving from a primary location within intimate family settings to increasing engagement with the outside world; and (3) the regularities in the sequences of social experiences provided by social and cultural groups for children, adolescents, and adults as they mature.

Second, social clocks¹ (Neugarten and Datan, 1976) and socially scripted sequences of socialization experiences (Elder, 1998) reflect cultural group adaptation to, and use of, these developmental regularities. For example, most cultures begin formal schooling at age 6. It is possible that this is the age when children have matured cognitively and socially to the point that they are ready for the challenges imposed by formal schooling. Of course, these socially scripted sequences themselves are likely to contribute to the regularities observed in human development (Higgins et al., 1983).

The psychologist Erik Erikson has provided the most fully developed theoretical model of these developmental regularities, illustrated in Table A-1 from the perspective of community programs for youth development. Like other theorists, he proposed that there are developmental tasks that must be addressed at particular ages or stages of life. These tasks change in systematic ways as people mature. How these developmental tasks are handled by individuals in the social settings in which they live will influence subsequent development. This means two things: (1) previous learning and development are critical to individuals’ current

capacities, values, attitudes, etc. and (2) current experiences set the stage for future capacities, values, attitudes, etc. Consequently, we need to think about development as occurring over time with experiences in the present being critical for both current well-being and preparation for the future.

Looking at development from this general perspective makes especially salient the need for families, schools, and communities to provide developmentally appropriate and enriching experiences throughout childhood and adolescence in order to both foster well-being and ensure adequate preparation for the transition to adulthood. Without such a guiding framework, programs will not necessarily be designed to provide the kinds of experiences necessary to ensure that adolescents will be fully prepared for becoming effective and fully functional adults. Many researchers, theoreticians, service practitioners, and policy makers see this as especially true in today’s increasingly complex and technological society.

Several other aspects of this model are important to understand. First, although the model suggests that there is a natural sequence in which each individual handles these developmental tasks, the specific challenges listed as typical of the different stages are actually operative throughout the life span. People are always dealing with each of these tasks. Second, nevertheless, due to both biological changes at the individual level and social changes imposed by the larger groups in which individuals reside, particular tasks are likely to become more salient at specific periods of life. The exact sequence in which these tasks emerge will depend on characteristics of both the individual and the social setting in which the individual is developing.

For example, Erikson proposed that confronting the challenge of personal identity formation occurred during adolescence and young adulthood and prior to confronting the challenge of intimacy. This ordering of tasks is probably most true for white American males. Other groups may have a different normative ordering. The exact ordering of the relative salience of the tasks should differ across cultural groups. Such variations need to be taken into account in designing programs for youth from different cultural groups. But what is likely to be more universal is the proposal that individuals both acquire new skills and needs and are confronted with new roles and responsibilities over the course of their life histories. The interaction of both of these types of changes moves individuals through stages such as those depicted in Table A-1. Finally, as noted above, given the cumulative nature of development,

resolution of these challenges at any one point in time influences subsequent development on all of these challenges.

Erikson’s model has been criticized for its potential cultural specificity and its apparent rigid adherence to the perspective that maturation is based on developmental stages. Limited research supports both of these concerns: sequences are more fluid than depicted in the static framework such as summarized in Table A-1, and cultural groups do vary in the sequence of the particular tasks and challenges proposed (Berger, 1988). But in his more elaborated writings, Erikson himself repeatedly stressed the fluidity of his model, particularly in response to cultural variations in experience and norms. Despite these criticisms, the model is a useful way to think about the complexity of development.