Appendix 2. Personal and Social Assets for Positive Youth Development

A Description of the Model

Eccles and Gootman sought to identify specific assets that facilitate both current wellbeing amongst adolescents and a successful transition to adulthood.¹ To do this, they drew on three sources of information: developmental theory; practical wisdom; and empirical research. Within the first category of information, they used developmental theory from the fields of psychology, anthropology and sociology. The second category involved practitioners' knowledge from working in the youth development and/or the prevention fields. The third category, empirical research, involved three types of evidence:

evidence that particular characteristics are either positively related concurrently to other indicators of well-being or negatively related concurrently to indicators of problematic development; (2) evidence that particular characteristics predict positive indicators of adult well-being and of a "successful" transition to normative adult statuses; and (3) evidence that the experimental manipulation or training of particular characteristics produces changes on other indicators of either current well-being and adequate functioning or a successful transition into adulthood.²

Eccles and Gootman argue this convergence of theory, practical wisdom and empirical research provides ‘strong hints' regarding the kinds of assets young people need, as opposed to facts, which require a greater volume of experimental research than currently exists.³

The Value of the Asset List

Eccles and Gootman's work on assets has considerable value, both to the youth development field generally and for the conduct of this review. The individual assets are essentially indicators of wellbeing amongst adolescents, and their association with successful adulthood transitions gives them some predictive value. In respect to programme design, the assets can be used as a guide when establishing the types of effects or changes a programme is seeking to facilitate in its participants. In that sense, when presented appropriately, the assets can also be used as programme outcomes, with the four broad asset domains providing a useful framework for organising those outcomes.

The Influence of Culture on Personal and Social Assets

There is an extensive body of literature that explores the significant influence of culture on human development.  Eccles and Gootman were explicit about the challenges they faced trying to develop a universal asset list given; for example, that different cultures value different characteristics in their young people and vary in terms of the contexts in which they expect young people to exercise those competencies.

After a prolonged debate about universality versus cultural specificity, the authors concluded it was possible to talk of universal assets at a very high level and that greater cultural specificity would be required as you dropped down into a more detailed level of analysis.  For example, they argued there are some basic human needs (eg to feel competent) and that failure to have these needs met would have a negative effect on development, regardless of culture.  At a more detailed level of analysis, such as when you were attempting to foster these assets within a community setting, local cultural contexts needed to be taken into account.  In the case of competency, for example, this would involve consideration of what it means to be competent in that particular environment and the specific domains where a young person needs to demonstrate that competency.

Footnotes

¹ Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit

² Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit, p68-69

³ Eccles and Gootman, 2002, op cit