In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

13 1 a “Younger americans act” An Old Idea for a New Era James Youniss and Peter Levine In 2001, a bill called the Younger Americans Act was introduced in Congress. It was modeled after the Older Americans Act, passed 20 years earlier, and was designed , like its predecessor, to take focus off of youth’s problems and to allocate resources for building on their available capacities. Following the passage of the Older Americans Act, the income and health of the nation’s elderly improved significantly. For example, previously the rate of poverty among the elderly was higher than that among children. Today, the rates have been reversed, and there are more children than elderly living in poverty. The Younger Americans Act never made it out of committee because its sponsors were hard pressed to explain to their colleagues how strengthening young people’s capacities would lead to a reduction in their problems. This outcome is not surprising, given that for the preceding four decades the main rationale for funding was to redress youth’s problems of delinquency, pregnancy, drug abuse, violence, dropping out of school, gang behavior, and the like. Not only were billions of dollars allocated to these problems, but the media made sure each of them was well publicized. As a result, the term “youth” had come to be associated with difficulties. Youth were troubled and, worse, were troubling for society. It is time once again to reintroduce the Younger Americans Act. The climate has changed, as it is no longer justifiable to view youth in a stilted negative fashion. School achievement has not plunged downward but has edged up slightly and risen significantly for minority youth. Teenage pregnancy and childbearing have declined to a low level matching that last observed in 1940. Teenage use of illegal substances is moderate by any account and is lower than 14 EngagingYoung People in Civic Life the level of their parents when they were teenagers. Teenage violence, which in 1990 was predicted to erupt into an epidemic, has actually receded to its pre1985 level; it is still unacceptable, but not indicative of a whole cohort of youth gone wild. The evidence for these statements can be found on websites maintained by federal agencies that pride themselves on careful collection of national statistics. These findings cannot be ignored if there is to be a reasoned discussion of the civic status of contemporary youth, their needs, and their prospects. Fortunately , academic researchers have taken these statistics to heart, and their recent work has caused a revolution in thinking about youth. Whereas much research was previously focused on documenting youth’s problems and finding remedies for them, a major effort is being made today to identify youth’s capacities for growth and finding ways to foster them. This shift in focus can be found in the literature under a variety of headings from “positive psychology” to “youth as assets” and “positive youth development.” This is no small matter either for scholars or for the public, which must now revisit its unexamined beliefs about young people. Already foundations, nonprofit organizations, and youth-serving agencies have reoriented their focus to provision of resources that are designed to promote youth development. The landscape has changed, for example, as after- and out-of-school programs have been structured to provide academic tutoring, disciplined recreation, community service, and even opportunities for direct political engagement. In a recent overview of research of these several and diverse programs, Eccles and Gootman (2002) state that meta-analyses of research have identified two factors that account for success, defined in terms of youth’s positive development: forming relationships with helpful mentors and having opportunities to do community service. One can immediately see the contrast between the “troubled and troubling ” image that dominated public discourse in the 1980s and 1990s, and the current portrait of youth who can be energized to perform constructively at high levels. We assume this movement will continue to be propelled forward as programs that operationalize this positive outlook on youth continue to produce persuasive examples and evidence. The aim of the present chapter is to advance this perspective by orienting it specifically to policy pertaining to youth’s engagement in civic life and political processes. It might be the case that constructive psychological development lays the groundwork on which civic and political engagement build. For example, healthy personalities or a positive orientation to society may serve as preconditions for subsequent mature citizenship . Easton and Dennis raised this possibility...

Share