Wirkungsnachweis aus der Literatur

Mittelfristig (1 bis 5 Jahre)
Mikro (Individuum)
Psychisch & Physiologisch

improved wellbeing as a result of participating in positive youth development services

psychosoziales Befinden

In terms of changes across time on the three dependent variables, ANOVA indicated that all three groups improved their wellbeing scores over time, with the positive group returning significantly higher scores, followed by the inconsistent and then the negative groups (which were similar to each other). By Time 3, the gap apparent at Time 1 between the inconsistent and negative groups on the resilience measure had closed; that is, the negative group made greater resilience gains over time than the inconsistent group. The positive group retained its position as the highest scoring group on wellbeing and resilience. Post hoc (Bonferroni) analyses of the univariate outcomes (adjusted for the three proximal relational resource measures) indicated that young people in the positive service experience group retained the advantages in terms of wellbeing and resilience over time that were seen in the MANOVA, but that the quality of the service experience at Time 1 did not appear to have any long term impact on risk levels when the impact of the covariates was taken into account.

Beschreibung der Aktivität

services using positive youth development practices
services such as child welfare, juvenile corrections, educational services, mainstream classroom programing using positive youth development practices (PYD)
Neuseeland
aged 13 to 17 years, mean 15,35 years
teilnehmende Kinder und Jugendliche

Evaluierung der Aktivität

Quantitative Fragebogenerhebung (schriftlich/offline)
The data upon which this paper is based forms part of a larger, longitudinal study, the Successful Youth Transitions Programme. It is part of a five-country (Canada, China, Colombia, South Africa, and New Zealand), mixed-methods study of patterns of resilience, risk and service use of more than 7000 young people. The research was approved by the University Ethical Review Board prior to the commencement of interviews. This analysis concerns a sub-set of the New Zealand sample (n = 506). These youth completed a survey instrument three times at approximately annual intervals between 2009 and 2013. For purposes of baseline comparison, a second group of youth was also surveyed at Time 1. This group, the comparison group (n= 506), was recruited from the same communities as the vulnerable group and selected on the basis of similar demographic characteristics (i.e. age, gender and race/ethnicity). To be allocated to the comparison group youth were required to not be currently involved in services even though they came from the same neighbourhoods as youth in the vulnerable group.
Normative wellbeing status (wellbeing): Pro-social behaviour, life satisfaction, educational involvement; Quality of caregiving relationship; Positive school environment; Positive peer group
Pro-social behaviour was assessed using the SDQ pro-social behaviour subscale (Goodman, 2001; ? = .66; Note: This is a secondary source. For more information, please check the bibliography of Sanders Munford 2014.) which assesses youth capacity for kindness, sharing and concern for others; Life satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction with Life measure (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; ? = .87; Note: This is a secondary source. For more information, please check the bibliography of Sanders Munford 2014.) in which youth ranked five questions assessing their overall satisfaction with life; Educational involvement was assessed by an answer to a single yes/no question that asked if youth were enrolled in any school subjects at the time of the survey.
Pro social behaviour: 3-point scale from 0=not true to 2=certainly true; Life satisfaction: five point scale from 1= strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree; Educational involvement: yes/no; Quality of caregiving relationship: five point scale from 1=a great deal to 5=none at all; Positive school environment: 5-point scale from 1=not at all to 5=very much; Positive peer group: scale from 0=none to 3=all.
1012 youth (506=intervention group; 506=control group)
2009-2013