Let’s pretend you have a serious weed problem in your yard. Possible solutions include:

1. Applying weed killer

2. Enhancing the soil and planting more grass

Carrying this analogy to the realm of prevention programs and policies, my observation is that most efforts have concentrated on “killing the weeds” by setting up funding streams that target specific risk behaviors among youth. Risk behaviors such as alcohol and tobacco use, sex, and suicide, all have their own funding streams. The idea behind these streams is to create programs that focus on reducing the prevalence of a particular behavior. Having worked in prevention for some time now, I’ve developed two main concerns with this approach:

1) “Prevention” as a term doesn’t seem helpful. There are times we certainly want to prevent things. I prevent my two-year-old from running into the road, for example. I’ve counseled youth and tried to prevent them from taking their own life. But prevention should describe only a portion of my efforts. Instead of trying to keep youth from doing certain things, we should inspire youth toward something better. When I think of the term “prevention” I picture standing in a doorway. Above the door is a plaque with the name of the behavior I’m trying to prevent. I don’t need to say a thing. My position says it all: Don’t go into this room. But what do we know about human nature, especially youth? They are intrigued most by what we forbid. By trying to block the behavior we may be drawing attention to it. I believe that if we can inspire youth toward something better, we have hope of succeeding in guiding them away from poor choices.

2) Risk behaviors travel in clusters. Anyone in the field of prevention will agree. Teens who smoke pot are more likely to drink alcohol, have sex, and so on. But our government addresses each of these behaviors not as facets of a whole, but as separate isolated behaviors. There are excellent programs that have long known this and attempt to address the interconnected nature of the behaviors. But this should be the norm, not the exception. Federal resources that fund such programs would do well to allocate their funding in ways that mirror the reality in which these risk behaviors occur.

There are groups and some funding that address the relational and environmental landscape–the soil–in which youth grow, some of which is downright uninhabitable. I hope this holistic approach will become the standard, for it’s at the level of the soil that we infuse youth with the nutrients to grow. Rather than restricting our view of youth to a single, undesirable behavior, we should target deeper elements that give rise to behavior, healthy and unhealthy.

Another tragic side-effect of these splintered funding streams is that the process encourages cronyism and adverse competition. Each prevention field has within it strong, vocal camps that fiercely defend their territory. They believe they are right, others are wrong. They believe they deserve the money more than others. They really believe this. In some cases, they are right. There are many organizations whose efforts deserve recognition and accolades. These groups should inspire others to serve youth in profound ways. But what happens all too often is that organizations within a field square off against each other and against other fields–forgetting that we are here to serve youth, not ourselves.

Prevention groups can encourage work that changes the lives of youth, no matter what funding source paid for it. We can work to develop and refine programs that appreciate the complexity of risk behaviors. Programs can address not merely behaviors, but the deeper causes of behaviors–like one’s sense of self-efficacy, worth, and personal beliefs and values. The behaviors are most conspicuous, but we should not identify them as the primary problem.

Tags: adolescent health, prevention education, prevention policies, risk behaviors

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• Share/Save this article

Jamie Oliver caught my attention last month when he received the prestigious TED Prize for his work to “create change on both the individual and governmental level.” I had been aware of his work to encourage people in England to make healthier choices in their lifestyle and diet. Many of you are probably aware of Oliver’s efforts to ban unhealthy food in England’s schools in favor of a diet based on fresh, nutritious fare.

Fewer people may be familiar with Fifteen Foundation, which Oliver started in 2002. Each year his foundation trains teens in the restaurant business. Most significant to me is that these teens often have criminal records, a history of drug use, and other high-risk behavior. At first glance these youth don’t necessarily commend themselves to the culinary arts. What’s clear is that Fifteen Foundation is the vehicle for human enrichment. While Fifteen’s cadets become exceptional chefs, more importantly the Foundation encourages youth to develop character, self-respect, and ambition.

Trusting relationships between mentors and young people are at the heart of this remarkable enterprise. The training process utilizes an apprenticeship model in which the master chef shadows the apprentice. Mentor-chefs introduce youth to food, farming, and cooking. Throughout the apprenticeship they also help the youth with a range of personal challenges.

None of this good work would be possible without a funadamental shift in perspective on the part of Oliver and his staff. Most of the world sees these youth as destined to a life of crime, drug use, and dependency on government resources. Fifteen Foundation views youth through a different lens–seeing beyond the exterior and behavior, the coarseness and tattoos, to unique humans endowed with brilliance, gifts, and promise.

Eating good food is not only healthy, it can also be beautiful. Oliver, through the vehicle of food, is introducing youth to a higher plane of living. I hope he inspires you as he has me, and that we all can find ways to emulate his quality of mentorship in our own relationships.

Tags: at-risk teens, empowering adolescents, mentorship

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• Share/Save this article

Clear Transitions

In the spirit of the new year I will begin down a fresh path with my newsletters starting in January. I hope you enjoy this last newsletter of 2009 capping off the “Five Elements of Effective Structure” series.

To illustrate this final element of effective structure, Transition, let’s build on the example I introduced in the last newsletter: Imagine you are working with a group of youth to encourage them to avoid using tobacco. You’ve discussed with them the role of various media (TV, Internet, movies, etc.) which may employ subtle and not-so-subtle methods to encourage youth to smoke. After giving a brief, clear introduction, you facilitated discussion and dialogue during the process phase, synthesized the student comments, and helped them develop actions they can take based on the discussion. With your help, the youth arrived at some brilliant ideas and developed specific strategies–ones they now “own” in a way they didn’t when they entered the room. You’re sending them back into the world with a newfound sense of responsibility and clarity. Excellent!

The next topic you want to discuss is the role of peer pressure (again, insert your own topic), and how it relates to tobacco use. Here’s where we can stumble. Not infrequently I witness presenters that begin a new topic without connecting it to the previous topic. The topics remain isolated. By breaking these topics out of isolation we encourage students to strengthen relationships between the topics. As you draw the conversation about media to a close and prepare to move into your introduction on peer pressure, pose a simple question to strengthen the relationship between media and peer pressures: “Before we move on to discuss peer pressures, I’m curious, how would you say media influences and peer pressure are related?” I like using the second person in this kind of a question. It is a reminder that your audience members, not you, are responsible for their own learning process. Then, allow for silence. Brains are working.

Our brains crave coherence. Brain research indicates that our brains are wired to preserve what is coherent and purge dissonance. We want to know how things relate. This is how we learn. The transition phase is when you offer your audience opportunity to create meaningful connections between two separate topics. When we can strengthen the relationship between two or more distinct topics, we strengthen the learning process. This is the point of Transition–to connect the topic you’re leaving to the topic you’re entering. There’s a reciprocal, chicken and egg relationship here: Whichever comes second we will best understand by connecting it with what came first. Switching topics without a good transition is sure to create “topical whiplash.”

I’ve designed this five-part presentation progression to maximize the engagement of the learner. My desired outcome by practicing these elements is that our presentations will be more engaging, lucid, and effectual. Please don’t feel you need to adhere to every jot and tittle of this structure. Make it your own. Adapt it to serve your needs. Remember, the agent of change is you.

Tags: communicating with youth, effective learning, engaging youth

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• Share/Save this article