The Positive Youth Development Model

Positive Youth Development (PYD) can be defined as strategies deliberately undertaken through structured youth activities (such as sport) to promote “engagement in pro-social behaviors and avoidance of health compromising behaviors and future jeopardizing behaviors” (Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray & Foster, 1998, p. 426). Instead of focusing on the prevention of problems, the PYD approach focuses on fostering positive outcomes (Olsen & Goddard, 2012). There have been a number of different versions of the Positive Youth Development (PYD) model since the 1990’s. This includes the 5Cs model (discussed below) and the Developmental Asset model. Both of these models have common features including building strengths, competencies and positive skills among young people.

The 5Cs model explains that PYD is the “Culmination of the Cs, whereby higher scores on each of the Cs contributes to a resultant higher score for PYD” (Jones, Dunn, Holt, Sullivan & Bloom, 2011, p. 250). The 5Cs refer to competence, confidence, connection, character and caring which are described in table 3.1 below (Lerner et al., 2005). Jones et al.

(2011) explain that the 5Cs have been recognized as one of the most important frameworks for evaluating PYD in sport. Thus much of the sport for development evaluation and research has focused on empirically measuring changes in these dimensions brought about through participation in sports programmes.

Table 3.1 The 5Cs Model

The 5Cs Definition

Competence A positive view of one’s activities in certain

areas including social (interpersonal skills/conflict resolution), academic (attendance/grades), vocational (career choices/working habits) and cognitive (decision making).

Confidence Internal feeling or belief of self worth, self-efficacy or global self-regard.

Connection Positive relationships between family, peers

or people in the community.

Character Sense of morality or integrity (what is right or wrong), respect for cultural values and social standards. Being able to act according to standards for correct behaviors.

Caring Empathy, sympathy and compassion for

others.

Ersing (2008) notes that the PYD perspective moves away from viewing youth as problems that need to be solved but rather leans towards viewing the youth as capable, problem solvers, a new generation, striving to achieve full potential, and ready to engage within their communities. Within this approach, young people are seen as resilient and flexible. This approach is of the view that it is possible for young individuals to move from adverse situations towards positive lifestyles if given the necessary resources and support to do so. This is consistent with the paradigm of humanism, which views individuals as being able to solve their own problems. Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow had a great influence on humanistic psychology (Jenkins, 1985). Rogers (1983) believed that individuals have the ability to take responsibility for their own life and achieve self-direction. Self-direction according to Rogers (1983) refers to an individual being able to view his or her situation and take control of it, in other words the individual is responsible. Rogers (1983) also believed that individuals can be self-actualized and the way in which they are socialized has an effect on this. Maslow on the other hand described self-actualization as one of the levels of human growth. He believed that an individuals’ potential could be fully realized if he or she reaches self-actualization (Maslow, 1970). Similarly PYD believes that if young people are provided with suitable opportunities and experiences, their inherent capabilities and capacities will be realized.

The PYD paradigm places emphasis on the competencies and strengths of young people rather than focusing on them as being risks. The youth are considered as a resource to be nurtured. The PYD paradigm has the view that through organized sport, adolescents can be connected with peers, adults, family members within schools and other settings through supportive relationships. Organized sport thus provides a context or environment in which young people can discover their capabilities and inherent potential (Jones et al., 2011). Jones et al. (2011) explain that the 5Cs have been recognized as one of the most important

frameworks for evaluating PYD in sport. Jones et al. (2011) explain that sport provides a context through which PYD can take place. This can be done through learning values, life skills and positive health behaviors through participation in sport.

While the PYD model is inherently optimistic and provides a framework for evaluating and measuring the impact of sport for development programmes it is not without its theoretical shortcomings as a way of conceptualizing sport for development programmes.

Firstly, the PYD model fails to explain how individuals change through these experiences taking place within a positive youth setting (i.e. a sport programme). The model assumes that if you provide the right conditions to young people they spontaneously grow. It thus sees individuals as a kind of “black box” (the internal workings of which are unknown) (Hanson et al., 2003, p. 26). Similarly the PYD model does not explain how individual development may contribute to broader socio-economic development. As such one of the critiques of this model is that it is too individually focused and does not make room for the possibility that sometimes individuals are restricted because of macro environmental factors and their socio-economic context. It seems to me that there are two potentially limiting assumptions of PYD:

(1) there seems to be an explicit assumption that providing the right experiences will lead individuals to grow regardless of the conditions under which they live; and (2) there seems to be an implicit assumption that if individuals are developed there will automatically be benefits to the broader community.

The PYD framework will be used in this study as a lens to analyze the findings of this study (i.e. what the ingredients of the programme are and how the individuals perceived their change). However because the model fails to take account of context I will also employ Bronfenbrenner’s Eco-Systems theory to acknowledge that individuals live within a broader context.