Youth Practitioners’ Perspectives on Building Agency and Supporting Transitions with and for Young People Experiencing Disadvantage

Abstract

Despite the policy and academic interest in helping disadvantaged young people into employment and education, and towards a more positive future, little is known about the process of supporting positive transitions for young people. In Australia and internationally, youth work is increasingly considering alternatives to the traditional deficit-oriented and risk-averse approach to supporting young people experiencing social or material disadvantage. With an outset in youth practitioners' perspectives on their work and underpinned by key concepts drawn from the Positive Youth Development approach, this paper seeks to improve understandings of how best to support disadvantaged young people's ability to thrive, facilitate practitioner dialogue and strengthen practice. Qualitative interviews were conducted with twelve youth practitioners and a focus group run with an additional eight. The paper explores three concepts emerging from the analysis that were identified as key to understanding the unique potential youth work practitioners have to support positive transitions with and for disadvantaged young people: having an ecological focus, encouraging personal agency and fostering alternative possibilities. The findings propose new possibilities for working with young people with whom mainstream services struggle to engage. The paper concludes by discussing the practical implications and limitations of this approach.

Collectively learning to talk about personal concerns in a peer‐led youth program: A field study of a community of practice

“…This study was designed as a qualitative field study (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019 ) drawing primarily on participant observation data from weekend workshops and data from semi‐structured interviews with young program participants, and secondarily on contextual data collected as part of a larger evaluation of the program (Moensted & Buus, 2022 ; Moensted et al, 2020 ). We chose the study design, because it could yield nuanced and contextualised insight into the key characteristics of the youth program's social practices, including relationships between participation and reification.…”

“…These interviewees were 16.25 years old on average; 50% identified as Australian and 50% as aboriginal; and eight identified as female, seven as male, and one as non‐binary. Finally, as part of the wider evaluation, we generated contextual data by formally interviewing young and adult volunteers and staff (Moensted & Buus, 2022 ; Moensted et al, 2020 ).…”

Why they do not care? Exploring young Indonesians' low participation in proenvironmental activities

“…Young people are criticized based on their images as “a lot of talks and no action” and a “societal problem” (British Council, 2021), which will affect a youth–adult relationship in the proenvironmental campaign (Moensted, 2018). However, honoring and prioritizing youth voices is a central element of the youth work (Moensted et al ., 2020; Sercombe, 2010). This study desires a mutual process for developing relationships, fortifying trust and encouraging conversations.…”

“…This study desires a mutual process for developing relationships, fortifying trust and encouraging conversations. As a result, youth might be more comfortable reviewing their choices and sharing their difficulties (Moensted et al ., 2020). In fact, engaging with young people is the key factor before designing a campaign.…”

Time to reconsider the best practice models of substance use care for young people

“…Lastly, a study investigating a peer-led youth program supporting socioeconomically disadvantaged young people. This study was a qualitative field study drawing on ethnographic methods and participant observation data from weekend workshops and semi-structured interviews with 15 workers and 23 young people aged between 16 and 25 years [26,32]. Data from all studies were subjected to thematic analysis.…”