ABSTRACT
For some time now, there has existed a lively debate between policymakers and the research community about the aim of public funding for social research. At issue is the extent to which federal support dollars ought to be targeted narrowly to research that identifies solutions to the most pressing problems facing our nation in such areas as education, health, and child welfare. With the tightening of federal budgets for social programs, the stakes have become higher and the rhetoric more strident. One claim emerging from this debate is that we already possess convincing documentation of the environmental, biological, and social factors that place children and adolescents at risk for adverse developmental outcomes. A call is frequently heard for wider efforts to identify ways to moderate these developmental risks. As a consequence, researchers are being asked to go beyond identification of risks to test methods for risk reduction. Accordingly, scholars who in the past have been responsible primarily for describing basic psychological and developmental processes find themselves thrust into expanded roles in which they are enjoined to explore the policy and service implications of their work.
