Examining the Developmental Trajectory of Youth Protective Factors

Introduction: Adolescent risk factors generally increase over the course of adolescence. However, compared to risk factors very little is known about how protective factors change over the course of youth development. For example, some evidence suggests that protective factors may develop differently for boys and girls and across different social domains (e.g., community, school, family, peers, and individual). Understanding the development of protective factors over time is important because they are the target of many preventive interventions aimed at reducing adolescent problem behaviors. Based on the core constructs outlined by the Social Development Model (SDM), this study examined how protective factors develop during adolescence and whether the developmental trajectory differs across domains (i.e., community, school, family, and peer-individual) and gender.

Data and Methods: Data are from the Community Youth Development Study (CYDS), a community-randomized controlled trial of the Communities that Care (CTC) prevention system. Twenty-four small towns in seven US states were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention condition. As part of this study, a longitudinal panel of 4,407 students was assessed annually starting in grade 5. Using data from control communities (n=2,002) only, we examined levels of protective factors as reported by youth from 5^th through 10^th grade. Protective factors were measured in 4 domains (community, school, family, and peer-individual) and included opportunities for prosocial involvement, recognition for prosocial involvement, and attachment in each domain. Prosocial involvement, refusal skills, and healthy beliefs and clear standards were also assessed. To examine the change in levels of protective factors from 5^th through 10^thgrades, scales were standardized across time. Using multilevel modeling, we estimated change over time accounting for variation within students and between students and communities. Then, we assessed the difference in means across males and females.

Results: Results indicate that most protective factors decreased from grade 5 to grade 10 with the exception of prosocial involvement in the peer-individual domain. For example, family attachment declined 0.59 standardized units (B=-.12, p<0.001) and school recognition for prosocial involvement declined 0.58 standardized units (B=-.13, p<0.001). Prosocial involvement in the peer-individual domain, too, decreased but increased in 10^thgrade by 0.08 standardized units. The developmental trajectories of protective factors over time was similar by gender, though females generally maintained higher levels of protective factors compared to males in all but the family domain. For example, in the peer-individual domain, females displayed a range of 0.20-.30 standard deviation units higher levels of protective factors.

Conclusion: These findings provide important groundwork for further examination of the development of protective factors in adolescence and their role in reducing problem behaviors as well as promoting positive youth development. The findings also have important implications for developmentally and gender appropriate prevention and intervention efforts.