Developmentally Attentive Communities

One of the central tenets of developmental theory is that young people grow up in multiple nested [Page 358]contexts: Self-processes, family, school and other organizations, neighborhood, and peer groups do not exist independently of each other but rather are overlapping and interconnecting influences changing over time. The occurrence of these intersecting contextual relationships is a developmental given; whether they are positive developmental influences is not.

A developmentally attentive community is one that “marshals and activates the strength-building capacity of its residents (both adults and youth) and sectors (families, neighborhoods, schools, youth organizations, places of work, congregations)” (Benson, Scales, & Mannes, 2003, p. 390). There are a number of implications in that single description.

Search Institute's framework of developmental assets is one lens through which to assess community developmental attentiveness. Other frameworks may be useful too, such as the “Six Cs” of positive youth development (competence, confidence, character, connection, caring, and contributions; Lerner, Fisher, & Weinberg, 2000; Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 2001) or the risk and protective factors approach of Communities That Care (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). Regardless of the approach, what is important is the specific naming of developmental strengths—not just deficits—as targets of individual development and collective action. The multiple developmental goals of developmentally attentive communities are to reduce youth risks, promote resilience, and build developmental strengths. Since 1990, thousands of communities in the United States and Canada have utilized surveys of young people's self-reported assets as a diagnostic for assessing developmental attentiveness and providing both intellectual capital and a source of momentum for community efforts. The surveys reveal the proportion of young people in a community who experience each of 40 assets, and illuminate across what contexts they are relatively asset rich or asset depleted. In so doing, the Search Institute developmental assets framework and survey provide a common language and sense of shared purpose for community action on behalf of the young.

A developmentally attentive community utilizes such information to achieve three related developmental targets:

• 1.
  Provide young people many assets, so their total exposure to developmental strengths increases (vertical pile-up of assets)
• 2.
  Provide assets across multiple contexts, so young people experience developmental well-being wherever they turn (horizontal pile-up)
• 3.
  Do so for all youth, not only those “at risk,” so that responsibility for the developmental health of young people is shared by all, not by specially credentialed professionals with a particular focus on only some young people

This last goal is especially crucial: If only some young people—typically those in trouble or at risk of being in trouble—are the focus of concern, then only a narrow part of the community is involved, and positive youth development in a broad sense is clearly not a priority. A community that includes all young people in its sphere of concern, but whose primary developmental goal is reducing risks, is not truly developmentally attentive. Likewise, a community is not truly developmentally attentive if it identifies broad developmental goals but focuses on only certain segments of young people.

The role of social norms and community expectations around the development of young people is especially central to the notion of developmentally attentive community, because developmental attentiveness is not only about programs and particular groups of young people but about all aspects of community life and all young people. Marshaling developmental resources in a community context is not limited to formal, structured settings but includes the myriad informal relationships and situations young people are in every day. Neighbors, fellow members of religious congregations, residents young people interact with in libraries and parks and stores every day all have roles to play in promoting young people's positive development. But several national studies done by Search Institute (Scales et al., 2003; Scales, Benson, & Mannes, 2002) suggest that the current norm in the United States is for most adults not to engage much with “other people's kids.” Other than those in formal positions as teachers, child care providers, and such, most adults believe interacting with young people outside their families is important, but only a minority say they do so with any regularity or depth. In most communities, there does not exist a widely shared norm of most adults being expected to assume reasonable responsibility for the developmental well-being and thriving of their young [Page 359]people. Thus, one of the most important efforts communities must undertake to become more developmentally attentive is for adults to make more explicit among themselves what are the shared expectations residents have about their responsibility for nurturing all young people.

...