External Developmental Assets in Urban Adolescents from Ages 12 to 17

Background and Purpose: External assets refer to ecological resources and support, such as caring relationships, a safe and healthy environment, and skill-building opportunities. Although external assets are regarded as key building blocks for healthy adolescent development and a potential focus of intervention, few studies have investigated the developmental course of external assets, especially in urban adolescents. Building on the developmental systems theory highlighting the dynamic interactions between an individual and his/her environmental context, this study examined 1) how external assets develop across adolescence after controlling for individual characteristics and 2) whether these trajectories may vary by gender.

Methods: Participants were 371 adolescents (174 boys, 197 girls), primarily Black, of low socioeconomic status, participating in a longitudinal, prospective study on the developmental effects of prenatal substance exposure from birth. Adolescents’ external assets (Support, Empowerment, Boundary and Expectations, Constructive Use of Time) were assessed at ages 12, 15, and 17 with the 26-item External Assets subscale of the Developmental Assets Profile, a youth self-report using a 4-point Likert scale with a possible range of 0 - 30. Higher scores indicate greater assets, with scores < 15 indicating challenged; 15 - 20 vulnerable; 21 - 25 adequate; and > 25 indicating thriving assets. Mixed model repeated measures analyses with an unstructured covariance structure were used to examine how each external asset domain developed from ages 12 to 17 in this cohort. Individual characteristics (race, parental attachment (α = .80), home environment (α = .83), self-reported internalizing (α = .86) and externalizing symptoms (α = .87), all assessed at age 12) were adjusted as time-invariant covariates to account for possible intercept differences.

Results: On average, the external asset scores on the DAP were primarily in the vulnerable range across adolescence, except Constructive Use of Time which was in the challenged range. After accounting for individual characteristics, all four external asset domain scores decreased from ages 12 to 15 in both boys and girls, with a gender-by-age interaction on Empowerment. Although boys reported improvement in Empowerment from ages 15 to 17, girls did not, yielding gender differences at age 17 on Empowerment, M(SE) = 19.96 (0.42) in girls vs. 21.26 (0.45) in boys, p = .028. Adolescents reported a continuing decline in Constructive Use of Time from ages 15 to 17 (M(SE)=14.93 (0.34) at age 15; 13.69 (0.35) at age 17). Greater parental attachment was associated with higher scores in all four domains of external assets (p’s < .01). Greater internalizing symptoms were related to lower scores in Support, Empowerment, Boundary and Expectations (p’s < .04), while externalizing symptoms were related to lower scores on Constructive Use of Time. Black adolescents reported higher Support (p = .004).

Conclusions and Implications: Our findings indicate that adolescence from age 12 to 15, typically spanning middle-school years, is a vulnerable time, particularly for girls. Our data provide critical information about the timing of interventions to promote healthy development. Interventions that focus on empowerment may facilitate healthy development in girls.