Academic research and theoretical conceptualizations of positive youth development have always focused on the importance of ecological factors that can influence youth development in positive ways (Brofenbrenner, 1979; Dreyfoos, 1990; Lerner, 1992, 1995). Studies on youth who are "resilient" in spite of being raised in high risk environments have suggested some of these same ecological factors can be important to youth (Werner & Smith, 1992). Forty of these same ecological influences on positive youth development have recently been selected and are referred to as "developmental assets" (Benson, 1997). This research was intended to lead to programming that can make a difference (Braverman, Carlos & Stanley, 2000). Interest in "assets" as nurturing factors has turned into a movement at the grass root level. In fact, Peter Benson (Benson, 1997), the initiator of this asset movement, was invited to discuss this approach at the recent White House Conference on teens. Recent studies using the "asset" framework show that providing these "assets" to youth leads to positive youth development. For example, Scales and colleagues using a sample of 6000 youth in grades six through twelve, evenly distributed across six ethnic groups, found that assets contributed over and above other demographic variables between ten to forty-three percent of thriving indicators for youth development. Also, when looking at specific indicators, they found that some assets contributed up to 54% of the variance (Scales, Benson, Leffert & Blyth, 2000).

Other studies show that adolescents who report higher levels of these same family and ecological supportive factors are less likely to engage in the use of alcohol and/or drugs, and in risky or violent behaviors (Benson, 1997; Bailey, 2000; Scales, et al, 2000). They are also more likely to achieve academically, have healthy life styles and participate in community service (Benson, 1997; Scales & Leffert, 1999, Lerner, 1993). The approach educates youth in the community to share their talents with their communities as suggested by Kretzman and Schmitz (1995). Cooperative Extension agents in other states have also utilized the approach (e.g. Perkins & Butterfield, 1999). The primary purpose of this workgroup is to educate California communities on these factors that have been found to contribute so much to the development of healthy youth, families and communities utilizing this grass root "asset" approach. This project is very much in line with the fulfillment of the role of the Land Grant University system and 4-H to do educational outreach that can be instrumental in leading to positive outcomes for the youth in California (Snider & Miller, 1993).

The Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources in California (DANR) has also listed a focus on positive youth development as a Human Resource target issue. Human Resource Priority Goal 1 places specific emphasis on creating supportive environments so that youth are able to reach their full potential. In particular, Action 1.2 under this goal suggests that in order to create supportive environments, educational programs should strengthen and expand the capacity of youth and adults to acquire leadership skills so that they can make a difference in their communities. As stated by Dr. Gomes at a recent DANR conference, we must "nurture the future." Indeed we have no choice when faced with the violence taking place in our schools today. Many years ago, Erik Erikson forewarned "For the sake of its emotional health?a democracy cannot afford to let matters develop to a point where intelligent youth?leave matters of legislation, law and international affairs to 'insiders' and bosses' (Erikson, 1950, p. 323). The focus of this workgroup is precisely on this type of education. A major outcome of the approach continues to be an enhancement of youth and adult collaboration and cooperation within the community as well as increased involvement of youth and adults in community service.

For example, Colorado has been involved in a 5 year state initiative on "assets" in collaboration with Search Institute and The Colorado Trust. Denver adults who had received training on "assets," created a "listening post" where older citizens visited the schools weekly during lunch hours and kids could talk to them about anything. Adults created this activity in order to provide the youth in Denver with asset #3, other adult relationships; asset #4, caring neighborhood, asset #5, caring school climate and asset #7, community values youth. As adults focus on youth as resources they seek to involve youth in the community, thus young people also become more involved in community service. For example, youth in Kansas City who were trained in "assets" noticed that there were more liquor stores in their city than safe places for youth. Youth in Kansas City then surveyed the city, located safe places for youth and created a hotline for kids to find safe places near their homes.

These are only a few of the "happenings" around the United States as education on positive youth development and "assets" are brought to the community. Many more innovative ideas are bearing fruit across the country, as caring adults in communities learn the factors that are needed by youth and the practical ways to create ecological environments in favor of youth. Richard Enfield, Chair of this workgroup has put many of the ideas of the asset framework in place in his own county of San Luis Obispo. This county now stands as a model of asset networking and opens the door to the many possibilities that could be available to counties throughout the State of California. See their website at "ABOUT ASSETS" from the main page.