Interrogating multisystem intended pathways to youth thriving and resilience: Benefits of inclusive human development theoretical framing

Abstract

Moving more deeply into the 21st century and acknowledging the ongoing patterned needs of children, there continues to be broadly voiced sentiments about the importance of all children’s thriving, adaptive coping, and resiliency. This paper notes that social science more broadly and developmental science specifically is a major resource determinative of the nature of remedies conceptualized, designed, and implemented. Evident is that the harms experienced by children and the solutions implemented by delivery systems are frequently unaligned. Efficacy and impact do not appear to be improved by multisystem integration delivery. This paper explores the benefits of incorporating inclusive and shared human development theory. As well, it examines the need to question the character virtue of the multisystem integration efforts intended to afford supportive solutions required for youths’ thriving and resiliency. Specifically, it addresses whether democratic and equity relevant character values are integrated into public and privately funded intended supportive systems. The position taken is that whether considered under conditions of trauma illustrated by the global COVID pandemic or the efficacy of systems intended to aid the most vulnerable youngsters, the character of the content of support and its delivery matter and can benefit from inclusive human development interrogation and theorizing.

All children’s thriving, adaptive coping capacities, and opportunities for the expression of resilience generate and maintain significant interest. They are salient topics particularly in regard to intended multisystem adequacy and impact. Attention to the themes noted is associated with and precipitate active sources of 21^st century anxiety, as well, particularly given local, national, and global levels of shared and unique challenges, need character, and threat level (i.e., situations often linked to historical differences experienced by communities and societies that endure long-term inequities). The recent pandemic, COVID19, provides a dramatic illustration of multisystem efficacy variation. As well—albeit not consistently acknowledged and interrogated—unequal access to quality supports and resources persists (i.e., remedies proffered are not always consistent with the level of challenge and complexity of needs confronted). Apprehensions and anxieties stem from persistent conceptual shortcomings evident for too much of social science and particularly developmental science efforts. The latter are frequently associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion unmet aspirations vis-à-vis the design of intended supports and implementation of linked policies. Difficulty in acknowledging the shared cost to all members of society given the persistence of inequality in all sectors of the Republic, as well, contributes to noted concerns. Contexts experiencing impact range from education to housing and, as well, to persistent health access and outcome disparities and inadequate economic opportunity.

However, the fact and sources of impact, too frequently, remain and function invisibly. The tradition is problematic for effective multisystem functioning particularly those intended as resources and support, the repudiation of inequities, and for closing real and artificially conceptualized outcome gaps (Spencer, 2022; expected 2023/2024; Spencer & Dowd expected 2023). Positive youth development attributes such as everyday thriving processes as well as resilience demonstrations are critical indicators. However, their interrogation must include consideration of context character significant for domains of human functioning, which includes cognitive indicators and intellectual processes, physical and psychological health status, academic performance, relationship stability, behavioral regulation, etc. All represent context linked domains of human functioning sensitive to positionality and inequality. However, they infrequently accompany questions concerning multisystem character virtue quality including their integration dynamics. In other words, at the level of systems and the linkages between them, interrogated is whether or not multilevel contextual influences have been adequately addressed for determining their efficacy of impact and influence for myriad indicators of positive youth development. Recognized are the multiple levels of contextual influence experienced by all youth independent of demographics (e.g., as a function of race, social class, ethnicity, historical inequities, and immigration status). As well, there are too frequent published comparison studies and dissemination reports of between group thriving and resilience indicators. But particular questions concerning multisystem impact deserve examination and interrogation. For example, first: Are the humanity supporting needs, accessible resilience resources, and particularistic supports needed by all children acknowledged and evaluated re: adequacy? That is, given the character virtue quality of multisystems and particularly those intended as scaffolding sources of protection and support (e.g., criminal justice), are they effectively probed given their role as critical contexts of thriving processes and resilience indicators?

Background as detailed elsewhere (Spencer, expected 2023/24), no matter if referring to research based delivered practices (e.g., educational systems), behavioral traditions linked with a particular mission (e.g., social justice) or service delivery such as health and housing—functioning as context associated routines intending to impact individuals—all matter profusely. That is, we can pose the question: What are the every-day practiced socioemotional relevant values that communicate respect for others’ human dignity? That is, when it comes to servicing, protecting and representing the reality of culturally diverse individuals’ authentic histories, experiences, and needs, successful multisystem delivered efforts require interrogation, sensitivity, and acknowledged salience of positionality. With reference to the latter (i.e., positionality)—given the implications for impact and process (i.e., given the varied mission or purpose of multisystem)—the character of those having power of negotiation and representation matters. Multisystem delivery quality is especially salient regarding “making corrections” for or offsetting historic problems of inequality. Of course, the responsibility of multisystems and the challenges of the task is not a new 21^st century reality. In fact, although repeating some of the stereotypic views about Black people rampant in the social science literature in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, Urie Bronfenbrenner—a stalwart contributor to developmental science—noted the inherent difficulties in regard to educational systems, parents, and programs as acknowledged over 50 years ago in an article published in Child Development, noting:

“We are asking a great deal. As we said at the onset of this paper, the psychological costs of quality and equality in education for all children are high. They require a new conception of the scope of public education as extending beyond school walls and school hours…They may even require some sacrifice in academic advancement for children from advantaged families to make possible academic survival for children from disadvantaged families. In short, they demand heavy payment from the Haves in favor of the Have-nots, not just in money, but in the far harder coin of psychological security and status” (Bronfenbrenner, 1967, p. 922).

One may infer that Bronfenbrenner is suggesting that social justice in achieving multisystemic democratic education supports provided within and between systems comes at a cost. The implications for socioemotional functioning requirements and character virtue quality for system implementers, as well, are evident when Bronfenbrenner continues and notes the following (1967, p. 922,):

“It is the tragedy and irony of injustice that those who seek to right it gain as much if not more than those who have been wronged. Paradoxically, it is not the disadvantaged Negro alone who would benefit from equality in education, were we truly to achieve it. For the only way in which we can give the Negro child equality is to teach the white child how to treat him equally.” (emphasis added)

Bronfenbrenner continues his perspective relevant to resilience and thriving very specifically by noting:

“In American schools, training for action consistent with social responsibility and human dignity is at best an extracurricular activity. The belated recognition of our educational obligations to the child of poverty, white or black, offers us a chance to redress this weakness and to make democratic education not only a principle but a process.”

There are recent and ongoing efforts of those representing positionality and power such as Gov. Ron DeSantis of the state of Florida to dismiss the responsibility of systems such as education and linked textbook content policies and to engage in “memory lapses” regarding the nation’s slave history; in fact, his interpretations suggest that slavery should be considered as an apprenticeship-like experience important for Blacks’ future employment (https://www.businessinsider.com/desantis-says-black-people-benefited-from-skills-learned-in-slavery-2023-7). The governor’s powerful positionality illustrates the continuing unwillingness and 21^st century multisystem resistance to examine the challenges to social justice—given particular decisions around required honest representation and historical accuracy regarding the nation’s slave history. Resilience and shared thriving require realistic and persistent functioning viz “systems delivered remedies” that implicate character virtue quality. The shortcomings and challenges associated with uninterrogated positionality for those enjoying decision-making power are a focus of historians including Jamelle Bouie (2023). Similarly, Dr Henry Louis Gates (2023) queries as to whether or not there is a basic fearfulness precipitating apparent individual and system resistance to acknowledging the truth about a nation’s past, responsibility for same and, thus, the quality of solutions required for authentic change.

As suggested, definitions of character virtue as observed in everyday life as behavioral traditions expressed by individuals or implemented as systems vary tremendously. Its developmental sequalae is critical relative to the contributing impact of education, associated social policies, interpersonal relations and interactive practices, linked academic curricula, and the scaffolding supports for these activities which show variation. As suggested by the previous, contemporary illustration is the “energetic” debates relative to the historical representation of the long-term maltreatment of America’s Black people and interest in keeping it “hidden” as part of public educational system provided history lessons. As previously noted, there is an almost comical demonstration provided by the State of Florida’s leadership and persistent “messaging.” There appears to be fundamental agreement on some basic principles that undergird the importance of the topic of accurate historical representation of America’s racial traditions functioning as public systems and multisystem level intended providers.

Critical to acknowledge in defining its importance—and I would add consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s (1967) analysis of its sequalae—is the scaffolding principles that undergird character virtue scholarship; suggested is that it represents a subset of social and emotional learning (SEL) attributes. The subset of SEL promotes specific traits including honesty, compassion, self-discipline, and perseverance (Prestwich, 2004). I would add to the list noted an embracing of equity and acknowledgement of the shared problem of injustice. As referenced, a particular publication is infrequently noted in developmental science although written by the revered scholar, Urie Bronfebrenner; he is respected and broadly known for his contributions to ecology focused insights previously noted. With reference to highly vulnerable children relative to education, he makes highly judicious comments on their status. They aid an appreciation of the importance of character value for all humans including how systems operate (e.g., multisystemic functioning of education). Bronfenbrenner’s (1967) comments suggest why social justice curriculum material matters and, as well, the significance of systems functionality; in sum, his viewpoint communicates why social justice orientations matter particularly when it comes to those individuals socially, economically and culturally disenfranchised. He states:

“In American schools, training for action consistent with social responsibility and human dignity is at best an extracurricular activity. The belated recognition of our educational obligations to the child of poverty, white or black, offers us a change to redress this weakness and to make democratic education not only a principle but a process” (Bronfenbrenner, 1967, p. 922).

Virtually sixty years later, the viewpoint is similar to an editorial by the well-known New York Times Opinion writer, David Brook (2023), when explaining the popularity maintained by four times indicted former accused felon, former president Donald Trump heralded by his supporters, who make him the frontrunner in national opinion polls while he runs concurrently as the Republican presidential candidate for the highest office of the United States (Brooks, 2023).

In general, in regard to social science traditions broadly and developmental science research practices specifically as represented by “intended social justice” promulgating experiences and outcomes representing important functionality, unambiguously, character virtue principles are represented in particular ways. They are deeply intertwined in the design and functioning of systems as solo or multisystem offerings given their frequent dependence on social science. The fact matters for implementation (Spencer, 2022). For those responsible for the policy relevant interpretation, design and implementation of “intended systemic supports,” uncertain traditions are observed. For example, desirable traits are often considered, investigated, and applied but to research subjects (i.e., the recipients of intended supports); however, generally ignored is the parallel interrogation of those who design and deliver assumed assistive strategies. Judged evaluatively, the “recipient focused trait strategy” function as the focus of scholarly agendas and programs of research and demonstration. They are also the focus and responsible party “credited” for program or multisystem failure.

As topics given their “treatment” and “representation” for various groups lacking influence, positionality, and decision-making power (e.g., as questions posed, variables selected, data analyses and their interpretation), findings of actual implemented efforts (and failures) contribute to literatures in the training of professionals and interpretation of interpersonal relationships observed among individuals and behaviors for those serving as subjects. Often ignored—as suggested—are those responsible for multisystem design and implementation (i.e., those operating and responsible for multisystem implementation). Regarding the latter, thus, publicly funded, broadly disseminated, societally impactful providing national direction as policy, practice and evaluation, knowledge production matters profoundly. It serves as a “cog in the wheel” of influence (Spencer, expected 2023/24).). Thus, scholarly contributions—as the knowledge base for the design of and operationalization of linked multisystems (e.g., education, criminal justice, health, and social service)—have consequences. For example, impact includes the implications for perspectives collectively shared (e.g., as professional dissemination of scholarship) as well as interpretations made of others’ cognitive and socioemotional functioning. However, for the reverse case, the same concerns are infrequently the “self-focus” or provide character virtue considerations in regards functioning (or dysfunction) of systems for either decision-makers or their implementers’ efforts (Spencer, 2022).

Accordingly, this paper provides an approach to character virtue that highlights and references both the “producers of scholarship” and, as well, those who are represented as “the subjects” of social science efforts too frequently scaffolding the functioning of multisystemic social efforts. Furthermore, and more to the point—viz character virtue undergirding principles considered on the production end of scholarship—there is frequently (and unfortunately) a failure to apply SEL precipitated traits to scholars’ own individual and collective science traditions as influential scholarship producers and, thus, its leadership. As inferred from the work of Barbara Rogoff and colleagues about America’s knowledge production traditions (Guiterrez & Rogoff, 2003), this shortcoming is salient (Spencer, expected 2023/24). Influenced by an anthropological perspective and cultural sensitivities, the emphasis of Rogoff and colleagues is an epistemic contribution that frames “culture as practice.” When functioning professionally as personal and collective leadership shortcomings, under-acknowledged cultural ways of learning and doing social science are impactful as scaffolding for multisystemic efforts. They suggest cultural practices that can act as harmful science traditions.

Such enquiries are important given that systems are, in fact, configurations of individuals organized in particular ways for providing specific functions. In other words: Are democratic and equity relevant character values integrated into public and privately funded intended supportive systems? Is their presence, functioning and inferred efficacy parallel for everyone’s children irrespective of social demographics? Whether considered under conditions of trauma illustrated by the global COVID-19 pandemic or the efficacy of systems intended to aid the most vulnerable youngsters, the character of the content of support and its delivery matters. Masten & Motti-Stefanidi (2020) thoughtfully disclose the need to define multisystemic resilience—particularly as supports under catastrophic contexts—for children and youth burdened with disaster conditions. The researchers acknowledge the varied definitions of disaster and note that most definitions convey the core idea that life is disrupted. Emphasized here is that equally important and too infrequently interrogated—but rather assumed—is the character virtue of multisystem dynamics in everyday life for too many suggest persistent disruptions of baseline expected supports for thriving. Thus, disaster-like conditions from an exogeneous source such as a hurricane, pandemic, tornado, earthquake or terror attack serve to note the exacerbated state of fragility too frequently ignored and underserved by systems of “intended supports.”

That said, multisystem resilience (or its patterned absence) is especially relevant to the multiply linked and interdependent needed supports required for providing relief under disaster-level conditions. As well, there are everyday conditions and supports positioned as “standard fare” or shared societal resources provided citizens but, in fact, are associated with myriad “impactful and invisible” systems of inequality; the latter are made more dire and evident under extreme conditions of need. Multisystem integration efforts are intended to provide seamless services contributing to linked thriving, resilience. and overall best outcomes for all children and communities. Accordingly, the history, demonstrated efficacy, and perceived resource level of responsive systems, as mediators to desired outcomes, matter profusely, for mediating stress and facilitating effective coping with myriad disastrous situations. Moreover, as a competing influence—in fact, as a source of risk and challenge to everyday developmental task completion and intended effectiveness of intended supports—there are frequent intrusive and untoward disseminated messages about whose humanity is considered and matters. Such perspectives have implications for the character of care ordinarily provided. The suggested “messages” may be connected with or reference social status (e.g., such as poverty, patterned under-achievement, and minority status), which negatively evaluate individual and community level responsive coping in pejorative ways. Consequent stereotyping of individual and community efforts would be expected to undermine both what has been described as effectance motivation (i.e., belief that efforts matter and have affective significance, as well) (White, 1959, 1960) or a sense of personal causation that one can make a difference (DeCharms, 1968). That is, uninterrogated character virtue shortcomings in regard to the efficacy and quality of systems’ provided services are influential. As described elsewhere, the invisibility of power is impactful (Mandviwala, Hall & Spencer, 2022). The effects function in un interrogated ways and usually in visibly; thus, they remain unrecognized and unacknowledged as missed opportunities of support and points for change. The situation is particularly relevant when examining the impact of disaster. In fact, Masten and Motti-Steafanidi (2020), impressed by conceptual efforts by Aldrich (2012) provide a particular definition of disaster and note (see p. 96): “an event that suspends normal activities and threatens or causes severe, community wide damage” (Aldrich, 2012, p. 3). However—as noted—there is frequently the problem of under-interrogation of system efficacy as a phenomenological experience incurred by all. But particularly under conditions of unequal conditions experienced by minorities—in regard to access and character relevance—intended supportive operational functions integrated as multisystem supportive opportunities fall short. The combination of shortfalls results in fragility and significantly high levels of vulnerability, for example, demonstrated by the epidemic illustrated by COVID stats. Traditionally under-resourced minorities of color fared least well when mortality statistics were considered (Gawthrop, 2023; Ndugga et al., 2023). Critical to keep in mind is that systems represent people (i.e., human delivery systems). Historic inequalities experienced by particular groups—most often communities of color—exacerbate untoward outcomes such as mortality. The dilemma of patterned unequally provided services produces systemic inequities, thus, making productive outcomes unequally probable.

The latter structure—either as independent or multisystem assemblies—as suggested, may be shielded by invisibility; thus, for those encouraged to make use of them, they function individually or collectively as risks, challenges (i.e., including traumatic experiences), and associations with under-productive, “in the moment” and context linked reactive coping efforts. For example, the failed responses to New Orleans’ 2005 disaster, “Hurricane Katrina,” are remembered as an illustration of a prolonged catastrophic and disastrous multisystem failure. As described in the National Geographic, it was replete with severe multisystem failures and demonstrated challenging reactive coping efforts required of its citizens. It is referenced as one of the most expensive and damaging storms in the nation’s history (Gibbens, 2019). Considered even within minority status, those representing the most challenging social and economic situations were most severely and long-term negatively impacted.

Expressed in developmental stage relevant ways, responses to adversity, as well, represent perception linked efforts at individual and collective resistance levels to epistemic inferred devaluation. Consequently, responses to disaster (i.e., as adaptive or maladaptive coping efforts) may exacerbate the impact of system level devaluation and inefficiencies. The produced behaviors of individuals and communities in response to a flawed or under-interrogated multisystem structure, then, can be characterized—as well—as either maladaptive or adaptive coping responses to stress, trauma and plain everyday efforts to address developmental tasks. Important to acknowledge is that in a context of ineffective systems—exacerbated by calamitous events of one type or another—appearances of individual and/or collective “maladaptive coping” to the particular challenge may be misconstrued as the fault of the client or intended recipient of services. However—from the phenomenological processing of events and conditions past and present—responsive behavioral patterns, in fact, may be “adaptive” given the resources and supports currently made available and the previous status of support from previously offered multisystem efforts. Accordingly, the role of character virtue for responsive systems as mediators against trauma is vital given that they function as impactful mechanisms relevant to and functioning between the nature of the challenges confronted and evaluative features of the consequent outcomes achieved.

Introduction

As multicomponent arrangements intended to influence the quality and character of ultimate outcomes, service delivery systems aid important functions; and especially salient are those having thriving and resilience achieving implications. Their efficacy matters and significance deepens as youth observe and compare their character and quality given the cognitive and socioemotional changes associated with maturation. Thus, navigating progressively broader social contexts and their sociopolitical significance, particularly given youths’ propensity to phenomenologically evaluate, individuals experience systems as part of their “sense making.” As well—given unavoidable ecological contributions and their variability—meaning making is enhanced as youth navigate media-emphasized, publicly funded, and highly politicized contexts (Cohen & Kahne, 2022). At the same time, systems proliferate claims of social respectability, sources of support and opportunity for all children independent of “societal location,” disaster status or social positionality. As suggested by Bronfenbrenner (1967), these issues are difficult particularly when themes of social justice are considered. Important and further exacerbating is that—when acknowledged from Blacks’ arrival to Virginia in 1619—400 years of obvious and under-acknowledged skin color-associated inequities for black and brown communities and their children remain (i.e., as “baseline positionality”). At the same time, continuing invisible about systems and multisystemic functioning are their procedural shortcomings particularly given the lack of interrogation of character virtue for those responsible for operationalization and implementation quality; thus, inequities persist (i.e., in regard to multisystem efficacy requirements considered as the starting point for all children’s thriving). Also continuing as invisible features are the competencies of systems (or their inadequacies) to deliver culturally sensitive and context-variation acknowledging services to non-minorities; the fact adds confusion to the evaluative character of services provided overall. Specifically referenced here are policy and service systems that make use of disseminated deficit focused social science practices dispersed through teaching and training linked “research products” and disseminated publication traditions; the research efficacy may represent concerns about applicability given the problematic questions posed and interpretations inferred too often from a biased lens associated with minority status or uninterrogated status or privilege (Spencer, 2022; Spencer & Dowd expected 2023). That is—and as suggested—the penchant, a priori, to devalue and problematize the identities and outcomes of brown and black youth without an acknowledgement of system failures as an aspect of the social science research tradition remains a challenge (Spencer, 2021, 2022, expected 2023/24; Spencer & Dowd, expected 2023). The noted conceptual shortcomings as traditions serve as major producers of developmental science scholarship that scaffold multisystem programming. Across discipline-based service distributing systems (e.g., criminal justice, social services, education, health sciences), the referenced shortcomings provide and oblige as the foundation for the organization and delivery of multisystem “intended supports” (i.e., that too frequently function merely as “aspirational”).

Contributing as well to the shortcomings noted are major conceptual shortcomings that remain intact linking and integrating—thus impacting—multiple and broad systems purporting to serve as thriving, supportive and resilience producers and identifiers of mechanisms assumed helpful of all. The untoward consequences are particularly salient during crises. The underinterrogated relationship adds complexity to the task of fully appreciating the impact of multisystem integration requirements when confronting disaster level and everyday significant challenges. Given the referenced conceptual shortcomings when considering the diversity of youth, there should be a concern that the integration of inadequate multisystemic intended services may have a synergistic untoward effect for some. Perhaps a concern should be: Might the effects of multisystem integration (i.e., representing the “invisible” shortcomings referenced)—operating synergistically—produce individual and/or collective untoward consequences at a level greater than the mere sum of individual system failures?

More loathsome and challenging is that too often systems are permitted to function as if offerings have acceptable value or are of similar quality. The fact of system differences—i.e., given systemic structured inequalities and inequities—is assumed to go unnoticed by youth themselves as well as their communities of socialization. However, just based upon what we know about cognition, learning, and socio-bio-neuro emotional reactions to observations of disparities, youth may notice inequities irrespective of race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. And given cognitive maturation and progressively broad bio-social development associated experiences, thus, unavoidable cognition-based perceptions of inequalities may have the power to increase stress. Youth have the cognitive capacity to infer significant challenge, which may further exacerbate conditions requiring significant adaptations to same. The point is that sociodemographic implications of multisystem delivery efficacy have consequences for individual and collective vulnerability character (i.e., differences in balance between risks and accessible protective factors). Critical to acknowledge is that it is not possible to discuss multisystem integration for resilience promotion and everyday thriving without also acknowledging multisystem vulnerability and potential for synergistic impact.

Acknowledged is the debate of various definitions of vulnerability. However, the strategy elected is to not misuse the focus by “word-smithing” definitions of what we consider relatively minor differences; the preoccupation distracts from the more major and fundamental concerns. Alternatively, of focus is the perspective concerning multisystem implementation quality and functioning of particular interest given broader inequality concerns. That is, as the major focus, our concern is whether socially just (or not) multisystemic supportive functioning is experienced as such for diverse youth and communities of color. In other words and as questioned by Bronfenbrenner (1967), “The costs of quality and equality in education—calculated, as they usually are, in dollars and cents—invariably turn out to be higher than expected” (p. 909). We detail elsewhere our consistent theoretical use of vulnerability as suggesting a status of balance or imbalance between accessible assets and risks (i.e., the latter descriptor of “risk” status is conceptualized as any source of potential jeopardy, hazard, or peril). That is—regarding conditions of normative (e.g., developmental task pursuit) or trauma-level situations (e.g., pandemic or war contexts) of stress, vulnerability level has implications for the ability to thrive and potential outcomes of resilience (see Spencer, 2006, 2008; Spencer et al., 2006). As well worth noting is the level and quality of vulnerability for children and communities seeking opportunities for thriving and resilient outcomes both in the context of addressing everyday tasks and surviving under disaster situations and trauma. As suggested, we operationalize vulnerability as the balance or imbalance between everyday levels of risk and accessible assets (i.e., protective factors, see Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008). The resilience and character of thriving for individuals and communities may vary as a function of vulnerability-level differences. Referred to here are individuals and the potential impact of consequences of multisystem resilience (or not) manifested both during everyday functioning and particularly those consequential under traumatic and shared disaster situations. For example, the changes in longevity statistics as a function of race ethnicity following 2.5 years of disaster levels of COVID-19 illustrate the point succinctly and clearly. In parallel fashion, the widely dispersed findings of “COVID-19 associated learning loss” by race and ethnicity similarly demonstrate the unevenness of multisystem resilience normalized under non-disaster conditions, which are then exacerbated under tragic circumstances.

Emphasized is that we generally behave as if challenge and opportunity-level differences do not exist and, in fact, implied is their assumed even distribution and functioning invisibility(!). For each—challenges and opportunity level differences—exist across the life course for children and the adults representing multisystems who provide intended socialization efforts and support. Challenge and opportunity level differences matter and 1) are experienced both interpersonally and institutionally, 2) represent both within and between unique and multisystem structure traditions, 3) reflect public dollar utilization differences, and 4) are understood or simply function as if inconsequential for assumed resilience achievement and thriving facilitation intended supports. Not unexpected, reports of race/ethnicity outcome variation (and, as well, under-acknowledged mediating process-based differences) tend to blame minority individuals and communities themselves for outcome character—which as noted—matter for the proliferation of stereotypes. Thus, the pattern reinforces hegemony (i.e., an assumed superior status for those of non-minority status). Consequent stereotyping reinforces conditions of risk and challenge for youth of color. At the same time, hegemony beliefs are further reinforced for those not occupying minority status; the cycle of inequality of experience and inequities as responses to trauma, thus, continues. That is, rather than objective asset- level difference assessment and a determination of “normalized race-based untoward conditions” (i.e., the interim period between 1619 and today for Blacks as 400-years of dehumanizing status patterns), the latter level of risk, instead, is most often ignored. The historical fact of an identifiable group’s enslavement and the implications for evolved coping traditions are “made invisible” for all with untoward consequences; the arguments against such conceptual shortcomings and which counter Governor’s DeSantis’ perspective were acknowledged given the historical perspective referenced for Bouie (2023) and Gates (2023). Thriving represent myriad coping and identifications, and result in responsive behavioral patterns requiring interrogation and, at minimum, consideration; reactive coping to culturally linked traditions to the institution of slavery are particularly relevant when, as well, they are linked with the nation’s economic stability. Accordingly, the interrogation of “invisible” scaffolding cultural traditions require inclusion in analyses of systems’ efficacy particularly those intending to be supportive of policy linked practices and changes to same (e.g., re: equity, national historical reliance on slavery albeit its abolishment, failures of effective integration practices, and contemporary immigration policies). As practices and policies created and performed by individuals, their under-acknowledgement and dearth of interrogation matter; the dilemma provides explanation for the lack of multisystem resilience as impactful experienced performances and—given its significance—the efficacy of cultural sensitivity as an ameliorative tool and strategy is overlooked. Of significance is that difference determination re: asset and risk differences are too frequently the quantified evaluated outcome or the gauged outcome criterion. Indeed, this is a different representation from 1) an objective tallying of asset and risk assessment linked to everyday experiences (i.e., given shared developmental task performance expectations), 2) the methods of coping, and identity formation processes of youth and communities under stable untoward contextual conditions and—as observed across the life course in the pursuit of developmental task completion and success, and 3) as a developmental and life-course perspective, the associations between current outcomes and access to needed assets required for subsequent successes.

In addition, infrequently acknowledged in our programs of research and applications of same are particular cultural, social and economic defined assets and their intersectionality of impact. Such power-infused and invisibility assumed emphases are generally not included in research and multisystem assessments that include youth and communities of color. Significant is that assets contribute to meaning-making processes; stress experiences determine the character of adaptations as decision-making, as well as stable coping processes or identities having resilience relevant outcomes (…or not). In turn—given meaning making as phenomenological processes—there are implications for vulnerability status (i.e., balance between risks and assets) as youth continue to address normal developmental tasks across contexts given their multidomain human maturation processes (e.g., biological, socioemotional, and cognitive).

Given the framing provided, the task addressed is to move forward a focus on thriving and resilience—particularly under conditions of crisis and trauma—in the development of African-American youth and, as well, the application of phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST, pronounced “P-VEST”) as a strategy for interrogation and understanding resilient outcomes (or their absence, see Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008; Spencer, Dupree & Hartman 1997; Spencer et al., 2006). Given that shared youth navigated contexts—the perspective put forth necessarily acknowledges, as well, the experiences of non-minority youth. As stated previously in a reference to Bronfenbrenner (1967)—which includes the adequacy of multisystemic functioning—the cost of equality to all is high. With reference to inequality, he notes that there is a demand for heavy payment—beyond money—from the Haves and Have-nots (Bronfenbrenner, 1967, p. 922). As indicated, groups share multiple multilevel systems, and resilience intending ecologies of development. But the “phenomenological constructions” of experiences actually had in shared contexts for diverse youth of color and Whites unavoidably vary given persistent inequalities and structured inequities. Both thought-linked and emotional meanings inferred about perceived risks, challenges confronted, and performance delivery of asset intended supports inferred about shared contexts—far too often and for too many—are frequently significantly different. The appreciation of various experiences of the same context—including multisystemic experiences hard—is critical, which addresses why new theorizing was put forth in 1995 with the first publication of PVEST. Its introduction was critical in its application of humanity processes as applied to the experiences of Black and Brown people and, thus, in its ability to afford insights concerning the building of resilience, the thriving processes encountering different challenges albeit in shared contexts, and the critical role of acknowledged vulnerability (i.e., different levels of access to assets and exposure to trauma and risks solely as a function of skin color differences or socioeconomic disadvantage).

Interrogating intended supports singularly and as multisystem structures

From a cultural sensitivity and context acknowledging perspective in regard to resilience promotion as an outcome and thriving as a continual process, a particular viewpoint is provided. It posits that resilience in African American youth or the multisystem integration and functioning of intended systemic supports for their thriving is impossible without the inclusion and process considerations of human vulnerability themes (i.e., both for youth and their communities as well as the systems intended as supports). For the latter—acknowledging the role of vulnerability requires a contextual framing including the chronosystem or acknowledged historical contributors to particularly patterned demographics (e.g., socioeconomics, race). History as context matters for discerning the impact of contemporary challenges encountered (e.g., COVID-19) and the adaptations required for achieving resilience. A consideration of history as context is critical for planning for and determining the efficacy of multisystem integration because it takes into account the historical worth of systems to function under non-disaster level conditions as experienced by children and youth who represent diverse demographics.

For this discussion, we believe that two foundational positions are missing from a traditional multisystemic resilience perspective. The first multicomponent position follows, and it argues that specific shortsightedness abounds. For example, too frequently ignored is the absence of a shared humanity appreciating viewpoint applicable to all individuals (i.e., independent of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, immigration status, sexual orientation, nativity, etc.). Also unnoticed is the obligation to acknowledge context (i.e., including historical contributions to contemporary experiences). Another shortcoming — although perhaps varied in character across groups—is resilience as an outcome potential for all human ity particularly given shared contexts characterized by long-term inequities; another shortcoming in emphasis is that human vulnerability considerations are key for everyone.

The second position emphasized we believe is made invisible and, thus, is frequently missing from multisystem resilience efforts. Overlooked is an overarching human development theoretical framing that takes into account—as suggested—the role of context (including history), provides a cultural framing, and acknowledges the human processes that play out in diverse social arrangements. All of the previous bidirectionally and reciprocally contribute to the traditional functioning of systems within which human life relationally unfolds.

Thus, the position taken is that it is impossible to discuss multisystem resilience without also interrogating the fact of all communities’ and their members’ shared status of human vulnerability. The perspective is particularly relevant to youth and communities of color; however, they include considerations having to do with non-minorities and those privileged by various circumstances. The need for an authentic framing, which emphasizes context is a necessity. That is, cultural contexts matter and require interrogation for authentically representing everyone’s humanity independent of an objective disaster status (e.g., due to COVID-19). For some communities—given differences in vulnerability status viz the efficacy of systems as contexts in support of human development—everyday inequities are sources of unacknowledged personal and collective disaster and matter. Thus, it is impossible to discuss the human development of African American youth and the efficacy of systems to scaffold thriving—either individually or collectively linked—without an interrogation re: quality and character virtue of its delivery. Specifically, critical to question are systems’ contributions to human vulnerability for all youth, families and communities given, e.g., race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, immigration status, and gender variations.

The argument that represents the two positions noted will be provided as a particular organizational structure. Part I . Focuses on the description of a foundational conceptual shortcoming requiring attention if multisystem resilience is to be achieved. Following that, Part II. describes PVEST as a basic theoretical framework providing a heuristic tool for filling the void noted previously (i.e., providing an inclusive conceptual device representative of the character and opportunities of everyone’s humanity). And, thus, as Part III ., we argue that utilizing phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory facilitates creation of multisystem integration successes for maximizing youth resilience and diminishing human vulnerability…not just for marginalized individuals but, as well, for those considered privileged as a function non-minority status.

Arguments for achieving multisystem resilience for all

Detailing an approach for determining a strategy for obtaining resilience and thriving for all, the section is divided into three sections. It provides an interrogation of the asset potential role and shortcomings currently evident for multisystems intending to provide support as equally experienced by all intending support from shared context. Part I outlines particular prohibitive shortcomings in approaches to resilience and thriving in regard to all. Part II introduces PVEST as a helpful and assistive conceptual device. Significantly, it affords an identity-focused cultural ecological perspective aiding an appreciation of human processes for all albeit filling an especially salient need relevant across the life-course for communities of color generally and, as well, those under-valued except for apriori assumptions of pathology, deviance and of some deficit status (e.g., socioeconomic, LGBQT, immigrant, and refugee communities). That is, individuals sharing contexts but occupying significantly high conditions of risk and challenge. Finally, Part III. and making use of an implemented and highly inadequate policy, this final section critiques and interrogates the demonstrated multisystem failure of the Brown v. Board of Education Decision, 1954.

Part I.: Conceptual Shortcomings of Approaches to Resilience and Thriving in Regard to Diverse Humans. The terms resilience and thriving are often used interchangeably, but there are important differences that deserve discussion particularly given the term’s often misappropriation in social media and more generally in popular discourse that often dilute their helpfulness for understanding important phenomena.

Resilience

While we will narrow our use to resilience mainly, scholars of resilience theorizing define resilience and resilience in a number of different ways. While some earlier work characterized resilience in terms of a quality of hardiness or invulnerability, more recently there has been ongoing debate as to whether resilience represents an act, a process, or a personal quality or ability (Carle & Chassin, 2004, Santos, 2012, Werner & Smith, 1982). Resilience has been described as the “capacity to bounce back” (Wolin & Wolin, 1993), an ability to adapt to adversity or risk (Masten et al., 1990; Iyer et al., 2022). It has been called “ordinary magic” that enables people to obtain normative developmental outcomes in spite of severe challenges (Masten, 2001). Others have described it as a process of responding to challenges in a way that provides the individual with additional coping skills or protective factors, suggesting the importance of growth and improvement in resilience (Richardson et al., 1990; Higgins, 1994). Masten (1990) represents it as the ordinary normative processes and resources between the individual, their families, and their broader community.

Over the years, researchers began to view resilience through the lens of systems. The study of resilience often employs a dual dimensional approach examining the risk of adversity and a corresponding positive outcome or successful adaptation (Bernard, 1995; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Santos, 2012). Although there is difficulty in clearly defining adversity and challenges while also agreeing on the meaning of positive outcomes (Santos, 2012), resilience has been characterized as universal in so far as all humans have the capacity for it (Bernard, 1995). The empirical literature on resilience has often focused on childhood and adolescence (Carle & Chassin, 2004) and competency is a term that often accompanies analysis and discussion of resilience both in theoretical and conceptual terms but also in empirical assessments (Bernard, 1995; Masten et al., 1995; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000). For children and adolescents, this success or competence, is often tied to three principal domains or particularly focused in three arenas: academic achievement, following the rules, and social relationships (Carle & Chassin, 2004; Masten & Coatsworth, 1995). Risk factors are voluminous but can include illness, discrimination, violence, abuse, and poverty. Research has often focused on identifying those key factors or traits that foster resilience in these age groups while providing a foundation for long-term positive outcomes in adulthood. For example, researchers have found that individual self-esteem and family connectedness in adolescence can function as protective factors and can predict mental outcomes in early adulthood (Iyer et al., 2022).

In their Kauai Longitudinal Study, Werner & Smith (1992, 2001) observed how the process of resilience builds upon each stage of the life course noting how protective it functions throughout early childhood and adolescence and can predict the quality of adaptation to stressors later in their adulthood. They did note differences across gender with protective factors such as autonomy, scholastic competence, and self-efficacy better contributed to female adaptation in adulthood than for males. Additionally, protective factors such as family and community had greater impact on male adaptation.

Thriving

Related to resilience is the subject of thriving which originally appeared in the literature as a set of positive vital signs (Benson, 1990). Some research has aimed at identifying these signs and developing measures and indicators of thriving in adolescence, most notably the 5C’s (Competence, Confidence, Connection, Character, and Caring). All of this work as seen fit to draw a distinction between thriving and happiness (Scales et al, 2011). Debates persist as to whether thriving represents a state, a process, or both (Benson & Scales, 2009) and is further challenged by the difficulty of bringing together different definitions that can be applied across samples and populations. While resilience and thriving suggest an ability or process of adapting to adversity, thriving doesn’t necessarily require the presence of an adverse event (Brown et al., 2017). It remains uncertain to what extent thriving can be distinguished from other forms of development such as growth or flourishing (Carver, 1998; Brown et al., 2017). Carver concludes that thriving represents an “extreme” form of growth that operates similarly to other forms of growth such as physical exercise with the exception that the growth that drives from threats are unexpected. Comparing definitions, Brown et al. (2017) identified development and success as two recurrent themes across the literature. Development relates to gradual improvements in physical, psychological, or social areas, while success is measured across various life outcomes. They suggest that thriving is the joint experience of development and success implying that it represents a person functioning holistically and effectively.

Some scholars conceptualize thriving as the high point on a curve overtaking resilience, surviving, and succumbing (Carver, 1998; O’Leary and Ickovics, 1995). These writers connect adversity to the positive benefits that can come after a negative experience. Thus, they distinguish between threats and challenges with the former producing harm and the later often leading to improvements. Under this model, resilience represents a return to the status quo following the particular experience whereas thriving refers to the improved state that follows. These scholars address specific forms of thriving including 1) desensitization to the stressor, 2) enhanced recovery potential from the situation, and 3) heightened level of functioning. The ability to measure these abstract changes, however, are acknowledged in that while some objective developments can be assessed other subjective outcomes can prove to be very difficult to determine. Concrete benefits, more easily measured, can include improved or newly acquired skills, great confidence, and strengthened personal relations (Carver, 1998). Research has shown that the higher the number of positive developmental factors that a young person is exposed to the more likely he or she will be to also report thriving outcomes (Scales et al, 2000).

Lerner and colleague discuss the adaptive developmental regulations and bidirectionality of the individual and context, which if fostered properly, can contribute to an adolescent’s thriving which they define as manifesting “healthy, positive developmental changes” (Lerner et al, 2011). The literature on thriving has been framed as the successor to the at-risk and pathologically focused studies of the past (Scales et al, 2011) with renewed attention toward personal strengths and resilience. Those affiliated with the Search Institute link thriving to “sparks” which they characterize as a passion or interest that provides direction to one’s life (Benson & Scales, 2009; Scales et al, 2011). They have identified fifteen indicators of thriving that assess qualities such as school success, social life, and emotional outlook. This work expanded on previous ones that were connected to status-related indicators (Scales et al, 2000; Theokas et al, 2005).

Overall these perspectives indicate the importance of moving forward (Carver, 1998) through time as a critical factor in conceptions of thriving. Some of the literature suggests that thriving is less a state of being or trait but a process of change (Theokas et al, 2005) reflecting an active individual functioning across time and place who is able to exert flexibility and adapt to changing contexts. The difficulty here though is the difference between conceptualizing thriving as a process but measuring it at a moment in time (Benson and Scales, 2009).

Individual variables linked to thriving include those coming from both personal and social psychology. Specifically, this is related to whether an individual can actually thrive in the face of any given scenario. Individual factors can include optimism/pessimism, hope/hopelessness, and self-mastery and efficacy (Carver, 1998; Park, 1998). Contextual factors can include the availability/lack of social-supports and the extent to which an environment encourages self-determination (Carver, 1998). These factors have been linked to thriving in adolescent and academic environments (Lerner et al., 2005; Scales et al., 2000) as well as in professional/work contexts (Spreitzer et al., 2005; Niessen et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2017).

Criticism of the thriving literature has focused on the inability for many scholars to come to an agreement about what constitutes a developmental asset and what contributes to and indicates thriving. Central to this dilemma has been the context and domain-specific nature of thriving (Benson and Scales, 2009, Brown et al., 2017). Whether thriving should be treated globally inevitably depends upon the nature of the indicators utilized with some (i.e., assuming leadership roles) being clearly culturally specific. Some have challenged the limitations of this literature on thriving and instead have sought to incorporate a racial, gender, and socioeconomic component into their work (Blankenship, 1998). Responses to this criticism have emphasized the importance of how many developmental strengths (i.e., sparks, relational opportunities, and empowerment) that youth are exposed to and how these are far better predictors of thriving outcomes than gender, race, and socioeconomic status (Scales et al, 2011). Scales and colleagues show that adolescents who have “sparks” and supportive individuals in their lives are more likely to have other commitments and values that connect them to their communities. From a national sample of 1817 fifteen-year-old youth (56% white, 17% black, 17% Hispanic, and 5% Asian), they found this was the case across demographic variables.

Unfortunately, in general, when it comes to the diversity of human kind, these perspectives lack an appreciation of human development as experienced by individuals with a particular untoward history in the nation and that research often explores their experiences in linear fashion as a status and correlated outcomes; the evaluation of the outcomes usually occurs as a comparison to individuals having very different socio-emotional-economic, cultural, and contextual conditions.

Given the background provided on resilience and thriving, the next section of the argument provides and details phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory as a much needed conceptual strategy for aiding the appreciation of a foundational conceptual shortcomings particular when considering the humanity of people of color. It affords insights requiring attention if multisystem efficacy and resilience is to be achieved for all humans. Following the discussion and dissection of PVEST, and in the pursuit of maximizing everyone’s resilience and thriving, Part III then allows for a specific; it provides an illustrative overview and encapsulates the interrogation of a policy decision which continues to have contemporary relevance although virtually seventy years old (Spencer & Dowd expected late 2023/24). The in-press project delineates the problem of conceptual shortcomings when it comes to discussions of human vulnerability, resilience, and thriving as applied to needed national policy as a system intended to guarantee shared equality and equity suggesting conditions. What becomes evident in the discussion of policy relevance is the role of context and particularly the contributions of history for maintaining particular traditions albeit usually presumed invisible. Accordingly, an ecological framing is provided that emphasizes the long-term salience of context for obtaining resilience and thriving. Besides the importance of history, another aspect of the ecological context infrequently acknowledged is the role of character virtue for those making decisions about the questions that are posed from scaffolding programs of research as well as the methodologies relied upon, and the interpretations inferred from findings (Spencer, 2022).Illustrative policy provides the consequences of conceptual shortcomings, which is followed by a focus on the importance of context considerations. The subsequent section (i.e., Part II.) then provides a theoretical device assistive to interrogating systems and policies.

Part II: A theoretical device assistive for interrogating systems and policy: Phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST)

As described in multiple places, a field of philosophy, phenomenology has a long and nuanced history and use. From our incorporation of the term for its conceptual efficacy and use in an identity-focused cultural ecological perspective, the undergirding philosophical assumption of intentionality also affords a critical conceptual contribution for its foundational contributions to and use in a development, culture and contextually sensitive framework (Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008; Spencer & Harpalani, 2004; Spencer et al., 2015), the salience of utilization has to do with its focus on the individual’s subjective experience. Because there are conscious processes involved which are associated with an individual’s meaning-making or first person experience, the perspective is particularly sensitive to biology based maturation processes which unavoidably link with affective and cognitive processes. Relatedly, noted processes vary as a function of bidirectional and recursive links with context character. Together, it is the combination of the term’s attributes which have made it foundational to the life course processes represented by phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST; see Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008; Spencer & Harpalani, 2004; Spencer et al., 2015).

Phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory provides an opportunity to include the experiences of marginalized communities into conversations about normal human development without the tradition to “othering” their experiences and expectations for pathology and problems (Kardiner & Ovesey, 1951, Pettigrew, 1964. The frequent linear associations assumed between marginality, high vulnerability (e.g., due to ignored unequal conditions), and expectations for the successful completion of developmental tasks leave out the possibility of thriving, resilience and exploration of culturally relevant and accessible assets (i.e., as palliatives to the challenges strategically ignored).

At its inception as a publication in 1995, the inclusive theory of development provides an identity-focused cultural ecological perspective that integrates issues of social, historical, and cultural context with normative maturational and developmental processes that individuals undergo across the life course (Spencer, 1995, 2006, 2008). Particularly in the case of the first fourth of the life course when navigating broad spaces is especially critical for development, situating identity within context provides an attentiveness to phenomenological interpretations and responses to the “how” and “why” of the process. As opposed to being linearity dependent, it emphasizes the linked systems of experiences. Thus, it aids an appreciation of the meaning making process so critical for appreciating thriving and the impediments to same. As suggested, the framework was formulated as a needed critique of traditional developmental theories that were deficit focused and ignored the role of context. That is, assuming the “sameness” of experienced context for everyone allowed for the privileging of some; making invisible different levels of risk, at the same time, provided linear associations between risk and outcomes for others generalized “marginalized” as “the other.” On the other hand, PVEST emphasizes the individual’s meaning making processes that underlie identity development and responsive behavioral processes and outcomes. The PVEST framework represents dynamic processes that continue throughout the lifespan as individuals encounter and balance new risks against protective factors.

PVEST combines an emphasis on individual perceptions with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (EST) (1979). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) provides a framework to engage the contextual factors that inform human development over the life course. EST articulates a series of nested systems in which individuals are embedded that are constituted by the proximal and distal components that interact with individuals’ developmental milestones and trajectories. Most immediately located around the individual is the microsystem which is primarily occupied by familial and home context. Adjacent to the microsystem is the mesosystem, which establishes the connection to the broader exosystem where more remote, disparate networks, such as neighbors and social services, reside. The outer bands are where Bronfenbrenner situates culture and values (macrosystem) and the broader events occurring over time envelop all of these nested systems (chronosystem). This includes the environmental, sociohistorical events and transitions that can occur throughout someone’s life.

As noted, nonlinearity dependent, PVEST is conceptualized as five basic components linked by bi-directional, recursive processes, forming a dynamic, cyclic model. The first component, net vulnerability level, consists of the contexts and characteristics that can potentially pose challenges and, thus, require coping during an individual’s development at any life stage. Risk contributors are factors that may predispose individuals for adverse outcomes during particular developmental stages or in myriad situations. The risk contributors function as liabilities which, of course, may be offset by corresponding stage specific protective factors or may be neutralized by accessible assets. Self-appraisal is an ever present and key factor in identity formation; perceptions of the risks one faces and the protective resources available are central to identity processes and development.

The second component of PVEST, Net Stress Engagement level, refers to the actual experience of situations requiring coping, and which challenge an individual’s well-being; these are risks that are actually encountered and that are juxtaposed against available supports. In response to the challenges noted and in conjunction with available supports, the net level of stress experienced requires that the third component, reactive coping methods, become activated or are deployed as adaptive or maladaptive strategies in response to the overall stress level or specific challenges encountered. As the reactive coping strategies become stable coping responses, over time, they can yield Emergent Identities (fourth PVEST component) which defines how individuals view themselves in and between their various contexts of development traversed. The resulting and ongoing problem-solving and decision-making behavior then yield the 5^th component which are adverse or productive life-stage specific coping outcomes. As suggested by and illustrated in Figure 1, the PVEST humanity acknowledging process unfolds for individuals in contexts including multisystems experienced. Their level of vulnerability status as experienced by individuals and groups, then, function as sources or risks and challenge or provide assets and supports as resources for the delivery of assistance provided or, too often than not, the experience of “invisible resources” are impactful as sources of risk and contributors to challenges as opposed to the intended or promised benefits.

Figure 1. Phenomenological variant of ecological systems (PVEST) (Spencer, 2006, 2008).

Providing a way of understanding and interrogating diverse practices, as a framework, PVEST links context and experience with individual meaning-making and identity formation, all from the perspective of human development (e.g., the overlapping contributions of one’s biological, socioemotional, and cognitive processes). While Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (EST) provides a powerful means for describing hierarchical levels of context, PVEST directly illustrates life-course human development meanings made of contextual events as influenced by these multiple levels of context. This approach is quite different from those that anticipate linearity dependent and homogenous group outcomes; problematic is that they are generally assumed to represent either deficits or inferred privilege. PVEST provides a systems framework for understanding the fact of and responses to the possible sources of variability (i.e., both patterned and unique). The dynamic process of negotiating risks and supports continues throughout life as individuals balance new risks against protective factors, encounter new stressors (potentially offset by supports), establish more expansive coping strategies, and redefine how they view themselves which also impacts how others view them. As noted by Erikson (1968, unresolved issues within one life stage influence future coping and identity formation processes. PVEST aims not only to capture this developmental process, but to place it within its broader social contexts. Thus, it provides a way of understanding different coping patterns as a function of the character virtue traditions and characteristics of unique and multisystemic experiences experienced in the context of developmental task efforts and successes or not for identity formation processes.

Important about the upcoming 70^th anniversary in 2024 of the 1954 Brown v Board of Education Decision is its disappointing and limited success. It has demonstrated significant failure as a remedy to 400 years of risk and challenges experienced by a group based upon their enslavement as a national economic benefit. Organized as systemic conditions of inequities based particularly on race, ethnicity, national origin and, thus, marginalization of particular groups, underinterrogated have been cemented as customs through multisystemic traditions (e.g., education, health care, housing, social service networks). More specifically—independent of espoused commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (i.e., DEI)—organized efforts, nonetheless, mirror the myriad residuals of enslavement and Jim Crow. Important relative to stability, traditions continue although infrequently interrogated from a character virtue perspective and particularly as abetted by social science traditions (Spencer & Spencer, 2014; Spencer, 2021). Cumulatively from the international stage, assets of the systemic practices continue as benefits to a nation—in practice—merely verbally committed to a principle of democracy and freedom for all. Important to acknowledge is that it continues to be a quite powerful use of skin color, identity, and unacknowledged inhumanity beliefs that remain evident given economic power motives (Spencer & Dowd, expected 2023). The 1954 Brown decision provides a powerful model for multisystemic practices supporting privilege and marginalization.

Part III: Revisiting and interrogating the Brown v. Board of Education Decision

As described in Spencer & Dowd (expected 2023), Brown v. Board of Education suggested the principle of the equality of all. However, evident is that given the uneven impacts of health trauma situations such as COVID-19, equality is still quite distant. Suggested is that the inconsistency between the embracing of equality and the reality of everyday inequality rests upon a shortsightedness and significantly conservative reading and implementation of Brown. Alternatively, the framing by Spencer and Dowd’s argues that Brown, in fact, stands for a mandate for comprehensive equality grounded in shared, common, equal humanity.

Spencer and Dowd argue that Brown commands that we recognize and implement a vision of common humanity. Four hundred years of systems, structures, and culture grounded in inhumanity and hierarchy centered on the assumed inferiority of Blacks and the supremacy of Whites were declared unconstitutional in Brown as violative of equality. However, in fact, the radical declaration required an equally radical remedy and replacement to a system of equality; in fact, one that would link with multiple systems for effective implementation. Argued is that each child would enjoy full support in response to basic developmental needs and tasks as described by Havighurst and others (Havighurst, 1953). Those needs are interconnected with the accomplishment of developmental tasks essential to successful life course competence, healthy identity formation, and motivation. Linked successes include life-long personal growth and development, physical and psychological health, and full societal and civic participation.

When interrogating shortcomings observed in reality for marginalized youth, in fact, full support of every child’s humanity and development requires dismantling multisystem embedded structural and cultural racism. Ideally, achieved instead would be to construct a system of equality for all children. Brown v. Board 1954 commanded not only radical change in education, but comprehensive radical change that would include the systems of intended support promised to all youth. Significantly, the full scope of four hundred years of embedded inequality was required to be addressed for achieving success. Instead—and more often than not—repressive underinterrogated traditions (e.g., housing) were linked with and abetted by the problematic character virtue of other underinterrogated systems (e.g., education, health, social services, and economic [employment practices]). In other words, the shortcomings of systems are exacerbated when linked as intended efficacy providing multisystems.

Particularly of relevance to the role of multisystems as traditions of support, inequality persists due to the failure to implement the radical, comprehensive remedy mandated by Brown (Spencer & Dowd, expected 2023). Particularly as supportive of marginalization based upon difference from whiteness, the nation’s current context is one of deep, persistent inequality on the basis of race compounded and interlaced with inequality on the basis of poverty. The authors acknowledge that inequality is linked to the limited vision of the scope of Brown and the meaning of equality as applied to education. It is also linked to inequalities, subordination, and systemic racial hierarchy in other systems that similarly failed to implement comprehensive radical change to combat the hierarchy of segregation, especially in housing, employment, health, wealth, and income.

Focusing just on schools, inequality continues measured by tangible factors while, intangible factors at the core of Brown’s radical mandate have never been addressed. Multisystemic are important sources of transmission for many of the intangible factors particularly salient to systems of education, housing, employment, and health. Opportunities for each of the systems and links among them have implications for achievement and schooling traditions, which have life course implications both for those marginalized and individuals privileged by a status of whiteness as systems are navigated in the pursuit of developmental tasks.

The failure to address the intangible, the common humanity core of Brown, may be what infects and sustains tangible or objective inequality measures. A child of color is less likely to receive a high-quality education that supports their full developmental potential as compared to a White child, irrespective of the wealth of the school district where they attend school. Both children of color and White children are likely to be unequally developmentally supported to a full, robust expression of their developmental capacity because children of color are treated as less human and White children are imbued with crippling lessons of inhumane racial supremacy. It is important that character virtue limiting traditions for using families’ access to schoolbooks that articulate the intangible impacts of inequality are being heralded during the first quarter of the 21^st century by Florida’s Governor, Ron DeSantis (Saul, Mazzei, & Gabriel, 2023).

Spencer and Dowd interrogate the problem that inequality begins long before kids come to public school in kindergarten, as evidenced by school readiness data (Spencer & Dowd, expected 2023). They describe that Black students more often have untoward experiences that begin early, rob them of educational opportunities and thus have more untoward experiences with law enforcement across the life course. Their analysis suggests that research on school culture and climate is far outweighed by research that focuses on the tangible aspect of education (i.e., achievement outcomes that compare disenfranchized racial minorities as compared against those privileged by systems’ unequal traditions. They suggest the role of limited research about attitudes, stereotypes, bias, and how inhumanity is embedded in structural inequality; they operate through multisystems that list diversity, inclusion and equity as “espouses values,” however, engage in long-term under-interrogated multisystemic traditions of inequality. Spencer and Dowd (expected 2023) posit that central to Radical Brown is whether and how schools as intended learning assisting systems can, in fact, support the humanity of every child and assure every child’s equal maximum development. Everything that has been measured demonstrates inequalities that intersect, proliferate, and ignore the mandate of Radical Brown. Yet the focus has been on bodies and numbers, not on outcomes of equality and the valuing of every child’s humanity. The book argues that the nation perpetuates educational inequality and racial separation and hierarchy, with a segregated system that identifies white with success and the continuation of white supremacy, and children of color with failure, lesser education, less developmental support, a bottom line of inadequate developmental support mired in assumptions of inhumanity. Unfortunately, uninterrogated systems and their multisystemic links provide scaffolding of the process, thus, delaying the dismantling of inequality.

Review of the argument provided and summary

We posit that PVEST as an inclusive framework, aids our understanding of not just the “what” of human thriving (i.e., as a process) and resilience as a status at any given time given the processes of development (e.g., stress situations and coping process)—but as well provides an effective for what might be termed multisystem “resilience assessment tool”; in regard the latter, the roles provides the opportunity for interrogating the experiences and outcomes of diverse humans. It unravels as outcome and intermittent processes content experiences actually had particularly when the intent of the content (e.g., multisystemic entities) is to provide support. For example, a multisystem entity might be the implemented policy such as the Brown v. Board 1954 Decision. For example, when Bronfenbrenner (1967) makes reference to the 1954 Decision, he suggests relative to integration efforts, he explains that nonantagonistic exposures matter, and opportunities as assisted by parenting adults mush be included for impacting both in and out of school experiences. As opposed to assuming that Black children would be the sole benefactors of an integration focused education system, he emphasized that the same multisystem context would have the task of teaching the white child context relevant lessons viz interpersonal relationships. Specifically, he notes—as previously quoted—“For the only way in which we can give the Negro child equality is to teach the white child how to treat him equally.” (Bronfenbrenner, 1967, p. 922). In other words, the character virtue of the multisystem implemented integration effort—as a shared context—would be to provide different tasks to children as a function of their historical circumstances. Black children required learning opportunities under nonantagonistic conditions.

Given that research particularly by William Cross (1991) and others (Spencer, 1982, 1985) have suggested the protective factor function of group identity (or one’s reference group orientation), from a PVEST perspective, Bronfenbrenner’(1967) insistence on the importance of a nonantagonistic shared environment is especially important and particularly so for individuals having experienced dehumanizing conditions. Specifically, PVEST functions as a conceptual device providing exploration and explanation of the intermittent processes had in multisystems; the framework provides opportunities for achieving an appreciation of “the how” of their traditions impactful for the resilience of individuals and the more or less productive outcomes intended by single systems or linked and serviced as multisystems.

Accordingly, multisystem exemplars are provided as well as a PVEST analysis. The significance of PVEST as a specific contribution is interrogated as a theoretical framing for understanding life course development for all humans. Accordingly, for both the character of functioning of multisystem efforts and humans, it makes clear “wedge opportunities” as interventions and options for authentic change intended to support best outcomes of individuals and the operationalization of linked systems. As emphasized by Urie Bronfenbrenner’s prescient comments provided over 50 years ago but generally ignored, as multisystems of influence, particularly “In American schools, training for action consistent with social responsibility and human dignity is at best an extracurricular activity. The belated recognition of our educational obligations to the child of poverty, white or black, offers us a change to redress this weakness and to make democratic education not only a principle but a process (see p. 922).” Whether we are talking about trauma precipitated by natural disasters, disease, chronic impoverishment or heinous, long-term impacting economic-based systems such as slavery (or other life-changing challenges), clearly, a particular inference is possible. The message we support and communicated is that the functioning of multisystems in nonantagonistic ways matter. Thus, as alluded to by Bronfenbrenner (1967), the cost of equality should be borne by everyone including “the Haves” and—he acknowledges—it is hard but necessary.

However, given the robustness of PVEST as an analytic tool, understanding how multisystems can be changed and positively assistive to all is possible. That is, given the analysis and interrogation strengths of effective conceptual tools including PVEST, effective change in multisystems is possible. Needed are strategies that consider individual and collective accessible protective factors needed for achieving and linking multisystem resilience efforts. As a requirement, teaching and providing authentic protective factors, guaranteeing access to culturally relevant and authentic supports, and modeling and designing best practices as reactive and stable coping responses are required (e.g., teaching shared humanity status—particularly to Whites—as “the Haves,” affording positive and accurate reference group orientation and beliefs). As well, providing identification and analysis of individual and group positive coping outcomes both for those intended as recipients of quality supports and those who provide operationalization and implementation of same as the functional context of multisystem character virtue quality is critical.