Understanding Ecological Programming: Merging Theory, Research, and Practices

Abstract

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 15 No. 1 (2005) ISSN: 1546-2250 Understanding Ecological Programming: Merging Theory, Research, and Practices Jakes, Susan Scherffius and Brookins, Craig C. (2004). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press; 93 pages. $19.95. ISBN 789024594. What makes a social program “ecological” is the overall focus of this slim volume [which was published simultaneously as an issue of the Journal of Intervention and Prevention in the Community (Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004)]. It is a valuable question because the term “ecological” has been used variously and at times so loosely in the social sciences that sometimes it verges on being vacuous. In addition, it typically seems far removed from its origins in the analysis of living systems. While I do not work in the area of social program design, I have considerable familiarity with ecological approaches to psychology. From this vantage point, I was curious to see how the term ecological has been employed among social scientists working on program design and evaluation. At first glance this collection offers a somewhat confusing picture of just what constitutes “ecological programming.” However, with a close reading, the outline of its qualities can be discerned. Jakes begins by describing some of her efforts to develop and validate an instrument, the Ecological Programming Scale (EPS), that is intended to assess “the degree to which the structures of social programs adhere to an ecological model” (p. 15). Toward this 385 end, experts were asked to explore the factor structure of EPS by applying it to a sample of existing programs. This same group was also asked to evaluate these programs for their ecological character apart from EPS. The predictive value of the scale's components was then assessed relative to the experts' ecological ratings. The author’s description of the methods employed needed to be more clearly elucidated, but it is hard to avoid wondering if there is not a bit of circular reasoning operating here. A more convincing case of the scale's predictive value could have been made if different groups of judges had applied the scale to the programs and evaluated the ecological character of the programs, respectively. Further, there is some question whether some of the scales, which appeared to be ordinal in nature, were appropriate for the analysis. In the end, the degree of integration among a program’s components was the quality of those programs seen as most ecological by experts. Finally, I feel compelled to identify one questionable assertion in the paper's conclusion. The author asserts that a program is not ecological if it does not attempt to 'change the setting-person interaction' (p. 27). While from the standpoint of program intervention this may be true, it is also worth noting that an ecological perspective is by nature conservative because systemic change can lead to unintended consequences due to the existence of multiple ecological interdependencies. Smith et al. report on their on-going evaluations of adolescent diversion projects. Their focus is a study comparing the standard procedure of processing juvenile offenders in court as opposed to returning the adolescent to their family either without additional services, or supplemented by a variety of advocacy and social services. The latter program resulted in a comparatively lower recidivism rate (22 percent) after one year. Path analysis also showed that positive expectations communicated by adults in family and community settings may be a critical factor in lowering recidivism. The ecological character of this intervention rests on advocates' attention to multiple settings in the adolescents' lives. The paper by Perkins and Borden examines the Youth Action Program (YAP) designed for at-risk dependents of military personnel. Using the criteria of the EPS as a template, the authors 386 see YAP as being ecological in its targeting of multiple settings and system levels, including the individual's relationship to family and community programs. However, whereas an ecological perspective recognizes that natural systems are nested within other natural systems and hence mutually constituting, the authors point out that this program operated solely in a top-down fashion. Further, in the course of their presentation, they make the arguable claim that 'by their very nature, effective and successful youth programs are ecological...