Deficits or Strengths? Re-conceptualising Youth Development Program Practice

This thesis is about the Queensland Youth Development Research Project (YDRP), a program of research I designed to respond to the absence of research on community youth development programs in Australia. The neglect in scholarly, policy and practitioner literatures of volunteer youth workers and community youth development programs has resulted in limited recognition of program diversity, the nature and impact of community-based programs, and the differences between strength-based and deficit-based approaches. Addressing this lacuna in the literature is important given the large number of young people from diverse social backgrounds who participate in organisations such as Surf Life Saving and Girl Guides. I address two research questions: (1) What are the core characteristics of youth development programs? (2) What are the characteristics of young people who participate in Queensland community youth development programs? I explore these questions through two separate, but linked studies. In the first I use a participatory action research model to examine how strength-based youth development approaches can be conceptualised in a program environment. In the second I use questionnaires (n=440) and interviews (n=37) to explore young member socio-demographic, involvement and developmental characteristics and their program engagement and practice experiences. In addition to the research questions, I address two methodological questions: (1) What might a strength-based approach to engaging young people in research look like? (2) How can such research be reported in a strength-based way that is consistent with inclusive participatory methodologies? I examine the first methodological question through an analysis of the theoretical, ethical and practical issues associated with engaging with young people in research. I explore the second methodological question by deliberating on the ways in which the words we use can be inclusive rather than exclusive of others. I also consider how the ways we write can have an impact on those who are written about and those who are doing the reading. The youth inclusive mixed methods I present in this thesis were designed to accommodate diverse programs: The Boys Brigade, Duke of Edinburgh Award, Emergency Services Cadets, Girl Guides, Leo Clubs (Lions Clubs International), Police Citizens Youth Clubs Youth Management Teams and Surf Life Saving. There are three research outcomes: (1) An analytic tool comprised of five youth program elements (theory, context, structure, operation and outcomes) showing the complex ecological nature of the youth development program. Most scholars, while not explicitly describing their research in this way, do examine a single element or some combination of these five elements. I show how some scholars, who describe their work using one or more of these elements, use them incorrectly, or fail to acknowledge their complex interlinked and bi-directional nature. This contributes to a high level of confusion about the characteristics of youth programs which the analytic tool helps to clarify. (2) A new good practice framework comprising six strength-based principles along with 36 indicators and 288 examples of action describing quality youth development program practice. These focus on the themes of learning and development; leadership and decision making; an inclusive ethos; community service; partnerships and networking; and ethical promotion. (3) An analysis of young member self-report data. Young people report that their participation in youth development programs influences their lives positively through the development of important life-skills. Research underpinned by positive youth development theory shows that when young people are well equipped with life-skills they are more likely to reach their full intellectual potential and be happy, active, confident, healthy and contributing family, peer group and community members. Comparative analysis on a selection of life-skills between two sub-samples of 12-13 year olds (the YDRP and a more representative sample), reveals that young members have significantly higher levels of activity in volunteering and significantly better problem solving skills, capacity to control anger, and communication skills. There are two methodological outcomes: (1) A new approach to using language to include rather than to exclude. This work has involved deliberating on the ways in which words can act to exclude or marginalise through entrenched dichotomies. Four examples are presented which focus on the ways we demarcate, for example, young people from adults, paid from unpaid workers, targeted from universal programs, and the ways in which an academic, de-personalised style of writing about research can obscure the role of the participants in that research. (2) Five case-studies of adult-led and intergenerational models of older and younger people working together to highlight research factors which influence the development, scope, implementation, failures and successes of youth-inclusive research. These examples illustrate the importance of using a mix of participation strategies for both young and older people to motivate, support and recognise their participation as researchers, subjects and supporters. Research with young people in the role of subjects will be more successful if a targeted range of information and incentives are developed for young people and the significant adults who surround them. Implications for future policy and research include the need to recognise and revalue the roles which Australian volunteer youth workers and community youth development programs play in equipping young people with important lifeskills. In terms of practical implications at the program level there is a need to increase program accessibility for disadvantaged communities, widen the provision of intentional recognition to include more young people, and to foster more positive attitudes about mistakes that might be made by young people. Statement of originality This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself. Kathryn Margaret Seymour