Exploring Positive Youth Development Approach in Indian Context

Abstract

Positive youth development (PYD), which arose as a counterbalance to the treatment models in youth work, stresses the role of family, community and other change agents, such as NGOs and educational institutions, in creating services, opportunities and support systems for young people to excel. The article tries to locate the context of PYD approach. Single case study method is employed to document the historical emergence of the Anubhav Shiksha Kendra (ASK) and its adoption of PYD approach. Though the study cannot be generalised, it provides a framework for future empirical studies on PYD in India.

Introduction

The period from adolescence to middle age is termed as youth. UN adopted the age group 15–24 years for defining youth. The National Youth Policy (NYP) initially (in 2003) defined the youth as in the age group 13–35 years. However, the NYP, 2014 modified it and defined ‘youth’ as persons in the age group of 15–29 years.

As per India’s Census, the total youth population was 422 million in 2011. It is roughly one-fifth (19.1%) of India’s total population. According to the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation (2022), with an average age of 29 years, India has one of the youngest populations globally and thus is experiencing a demographic dividend that would continue for a decade or so. This strength also brings in development challenges related to education, gainful employment, civic participation, youth friendly health services, etc. It is only through providing opportunities and capacity building that young people can be entrusted with the task of transforming the social and economic development of the country. Globally, positive youth development (PYD) approach is considered effective in youth programming. In India, it is yet to get articulated in policy documents. Notwithstanding the fact that there is seldom any documentation, some NGOs have tried to initiate PYD-based interventions.

Interestingly, the NYP of India 2021 articulated the need to provide the right atmosphere for youth to achieve their full potential and, through them, enable India to find its rightful place in the community of nations. For achieving this vision, the policy identifies five well-defined objectives and 11 priority areas and suggests policy interventions in each priority area. The priority areas are education, skill development and employment, entrepreneurship, health and healthy lifestyle, sports, promotion of social values, community engagement, participation in politics and governance, youth engagement, inclusion and social justice. The Department of Youth Affairs of the Government of India collaborates with several NGOs, colleges and universities to implement youth development programmes. In this context, there is a need to document a case, as it will help not only NGOs but also higher education institutions plan activities related to youth programming. The objectives of this article are as follows:

Locate the context of PYD approach.

Document the historical emergence of the Anubhav Shiksha Kendra (ASK) and its adoption of PYD approach.

Theoretical Overview

There is no single practice of youth work. However, a variety of approaches for engaging with youth is prevalent. Cooper and White (1994) list six models of working with youth, namely Treatment, Reform, Radical Advocacy, Non-Radical Advocacy, Radical Empowerment and Non-Radical Empowerment. The Treatment model defines young people as deviant, mad or deficient. They must be treated or made to conform to societal ‘norms’ to become productive members. The Reform model defines young people as being socially disadvantaged by their environment and upbringing. This model maintains that some minor changes (reforms) may be necessary to improve conditions for disadvantaged groups. The Radical Advocacy model defines young people as being marginalised by current society through inadequate basic rights or social protection. Interventions are needed to promote and advocate the reform of institutional inequality. The Non-Radical Advocacy model looks at society as a complex and bureaucratic system, and it is the task of others (besides the youth worker) to change it. Radical Empowerment contends that institutions, which operate to protect the privileged or powerful, systematically disempower young people. In this approach, youth workers should not act as advocates for young people but rather help them to obtain the skills to act on their own. Non-Radical Empowerment model holds that young people do not have enough control or power over their lives. It also states that empowerment can be achieved if the young person is assisted to become more powerful within whatever framework of values they individually choose.

Youth development arose as a counterbalance to the treatment models in youth work. Hamilton et al. (2004) consider youth development to three logically related aspects such as understanding the lifespan development process, belief in strength principles and utilisation of planned set of practices that foster the developmental process. Most important to note is that development is not simply something that happens to a person; it is about the human agency, that is, a young person’s active involvement in shaping the process of development.

ACT (Assets Coming Together) for Youth (a project of Cornell University Bronfenbrenner Centre for Translational Research) defines PYD as a framework that guides communities in the way they organise services, opportunities, and supports so that young people can develop to their full potential. PYD approach emphasises these principles:

Focus on strengths and positive outcomes. Rather than taking a deficit-based approach, communities intentionally help young people build on their strengths and develop the competencies, values and connections they need for life and work.

Youth voice and engagement. Youth are valued partners who have meaningful decision-making roles in programmes and communities.

Strategies that involve all youth. Communities support and engage all youth rather than focusing solely on ‘high-risk’ or ‘gifted’ youth.

Community involvement and collaboration. PYD includes but reaches beyond programmes; it promotes collaboration for community change.

Long-term commitment. Communities provide the ongoing, developmentally appropriate support young people need over the first 20 years of their lives.

(Source: http://actforyouth.net/youth_development/development/)

PYD stresses the creation of services, opportunities, and supports (Pittman et al., 2001). Services are actions done to or for youth intended to enhance health, safety, performance, and other forms of essential wellbeing and physiological functioning. Opportunities are actions by young people, where youth become actors rather than recipients. Supports are tangible activities that are done with youth to facilitate access to interpersonal relationships and resources. Three main categories of support: emotional, motivational, and strategic.

One of the most influential theories in PYD is Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological human development, which states that children develop through a series of interactions with their social environments. Families, peer groups, schools, neighbourhoods, faith groups and the many other settings that a child experiences will promote or hinder their development. The interaction between a child and their social environments is reciprocal. This means that development does not simply happen to children and adolescents (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The human ecology perspective informs the PYD philosophy. Rather than focusing solely on behaviour change among youth, the PYD approach seeks to change the environments in which young people grow, act and make decisions.

The return of the field of prevention science has also influenced PYD. Prevention analysis identifies risk factors that increase the likelihood of negative behaviours such as violence, risky sexual behaviours and substance abuse and suggests strategies for supporting at-risk youth. Hamilton et al. (2004) offer an analysis of this relationship in Youth Development and Prevention and argue that ‘primary prevention’ is consistent with those of youth development as choice, participation, voice and empowerment are part of the re-definitions of prevention.

Resiliency studies are another field of study that has greatly influenced the development of the PYD. Resiliency approach asks a fundamental question on how young people do well despite the risk factors they face. By undertaking resiliency analysis, Werner and Smith (1992) identify the characteristics that buffer the impact of risk factors, thus increasing the likelihood of positive behaviours. These characteristics may be intrinsic to the child or part of the child’s environment. For example, the presence of caring adults in a young person’s life is a key environmental factor that promotes positive outcomes.

Developmental assets are an emerging and recent conceptual framework that addresses why young people succeed. Benson (2006) at Search Institute (2019) identified 40 developmental assets that make it possible for young people to thrive. Developmental assets are experiences, values, skills and opportunities that young people need to develop to their full potential.

One of Search Institute (2019)’s important contributions to the field has been to demonstrate a relationship between assets and outcomes: the fewer assets a young person experiences, the more likely it is that he will engage in negative behaviours such as alcohol use and violence. Similarly, the more assets a young person has, the more likely he is to succeed in school and make healthy behaviour choices.

Methodology

In this study, an interpretivist single case design is used. Thomas (2011: 513) defines case study as ‘analysis of persons, events, decisions, projects, policies, institutions or other systems that are studied holistically by one or more methods’. One of the important aspects of case study is the case selection. Thomas (2011) highlights that in most occasions, a case is selected because it is an unusual or revealing example. In this study, ASK is chosen as it is a revealing example. An information-oriented sampling is chosen as it will reveal more information than a representative case. Two methods, such as observation and archival data, are used in this study. As one of the researchers was involved in the project, they had the opportunity to observe the way the project shaped up. They have insight and lived experience with respect to the programming. In addition, the project proposal, annual reports and project evaluation reports were obtained from institutional archives as they were rich sources of information of the project. The data obtained are presented using a narrative analysis approach. The limitation of the case study is that it only reflects the manner in which ASK programme is aligned with PYD approach from a subjective point of view. It cannot be generalised. However, the objective was only to document a revealing example that can be used as a framework for intervention or further research studies.

Case of ASK

ASK, as a programme of sensitising youth and motivating them for social action, has been running for about two decades in the states of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. It is a joint programme of seven organisations, and it is implemented in twenty districts in Maharashtra and two in Madhya Pradesh. The basic goal of the programme has been to build the capacities of young people to become concerned, responsible citizens and to facilitate the process of social transformation through them.

ASK consortium is led by YUVA (Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action), a voluntary organisation in Mumbai. The initial support for the consortium came from SMILE programme (Students Mobilisation Initiative for Learning through Exposure), which was initiated by the Indo-German Social Service Society. Swiss Development Corporation (SDC) started supporting the programme from 2000, whereas Katholische Zentralstelle für Entwicklungshilfe (KZE) joined the programme in 2003. Later the programme was supported by Misereor.

The core values pursued by ASK consist of social justice, gender justice, ecological justice, honesty and integrity, secularism and democracy and dignity of labour. Three participating levels for youth are defined under ASK which are designated as Mitra (concerned citizen), Sahayogi (change agent) and Sathi (leader).

Mitra: The first level of participation in ASK is Anubhav Mitra, which refers to youth who have been encouraged to reflect upon their situation and who have attended at least four programmes of Anubhav. They are the ones who ‘know’ the values of Anubhav Shiksha.

Sahayogi: Out of Anubhav Mitras, some youth show specific interest and more involvement in the issues with Anubhav and are in touch with the centre regularly. They are the ones who motivate others to get involved in the Anubhav process. They play the role of a change agent in society and are called Anubhav Sahayogi. They are the ones who ‘understand’ the values in ASK.

Sathi: From these Sahayogis, some youth get involved more actively with Anubhav and other social development activities than others. They motivate and mobilise more youth to join the process of Anubhav. They also start organising programmes/events and organisations on their own and with their own groups. They become leaders or cadres in programmes or with other organisations. They are called Anubhav Sathi. The Sathi are individuals who have ‘internalised’ the Anubhav values to the point where it is reflected in their behaviour.

ASK’s strength lies in the values it intends to cherish. The three themes of livelihoods, governance and sexuality continue to remain relevant because these are the intrinsic concerns of young people.

The key dimensions of the projects include youth motivation, youth exchange and youth forum building. All these dimensions are located within the PYD approach, particularly pertaining to the role of NGOs and educational institutions in creating services, opportunities and support systems for young people to excel.

Youth motivation: Youth motivation dimension dwells on mobilising youth in the development process, and activities in this dimension include orientation programmes, social awareness events, youth fairs (Melavas), training and capacity-building programmes.

Youth exchange: The purpose of the youth exchange programme is to expose youth to the relevant development processes within or outside the geographic cluster. This is done through Anubhav Shiksha core group events, exposure visits and facilitating sharing and valuing of experience.

Youth forum building: The youth forum is an opportunity for youth to voice their concerns in social political environment and take a firm stance. Some of the activities under youth forum building include organisation building processes, mobilisation campaigns, outreach programmes, issue-based workshops and seminars.

Anubhav Samaj: The component of creating a civil society (Anubhav Samaj) out of the past Sathis and Sahayogis was added in 2014. Under this component, various types of gatherings and processes are organised.

As a result of the ASK programme, the following impact is visible:

Youth who participate in this programme are able to build a perception of internal/external realities about self and society. They are able to explore and access the opportunities of learning and exchange to generate insights for development aspects and practices. Youth were able to inculcate ASK values and become concerned and responsible citizens. In addition to development of social capacities, they were able to gain skills necessary for employment.

The ASK-trained youth are also able to develop a caring personality (a sense of empathy for others), confidence (belief in one’s capacity to succeed), character (i.e., taking responsibility), connection (positive bonds with people), competence (the ability to act effectively in social situations), as well as contribute (by active participation in youth forum).

Discussion and Conclusion

Research findings on evaluations of PYD programmes by Amin et al. (2016), Díaz and Rosas (2016), Alcid (2014) and Jewkes et al. (2014) show the impact of PYD. A systematic review by Plaut and Moss (2017) suggests that PYD programmes increased the ability of youth to apply for a job and engage in formal and self-employment, which is reflected in growth of assets, increased savings, proliferation in understanding marketing and developing a business plan. Catalano et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review of over 21,500 articles and over 3,700 evaluation reports published between 1990 and mid-2016. Out of these, 94 PYD programmes with evaluations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were identified, of which 35 had at least one experimental or rigorous quasi-experimental evaluation. The results demonstrated positive effects on behaviours, including developmental, employment and health indicators. Similarly, Catherine et al. (2020) highlighted that PYD practices in schools help youth from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to improve college and career readiness. A recent study by Horrillo et al. (2021) indicated that the PYD programme equipped youth participants to plan and manage their careers.

PYD studies in India are very limited. A study by Achyut et al. (2011) highlighted the role of PYD in enhancing gender equality. Studies by Das et al. (2015) and Miller et al. (2014) dealt with gender outcomes. Beattie et al. (2015) identified that PYD programmes help adolescent girls to stay in school, reduce child marriage and reduce entry into sex work. Srikala and Kishore (2010) discussed the improvement in mental health due to participation in PYD programmes. Saha and Shukla (2017) found that PYD helped youth to emotionally regulate their character and increase their caring behaviour.

Thus, it is established via systematic reviews and empirical/scientific studies that PYD approach has great potential to address youth issues in areas such as gender inequality, at-risk behaviour and mental health. There are studies that capture the fact that PYD improves civic awareness and social sensitivity. With a host of education institutions, NGOs, youth clubs and other civil society organisations involved in youth work in India, it is important to design result-based interventions with PYD approach by collaborating with youth as valued partners in decision-making process, thereby promoting the culture of ‘collaboration for change’ which is reflected in the resilient India (Aatma Nirbhar Bharat) initiatives of the Government of India.

The following are some of the Recommendations:

A national level youth work association needs to be formed which can work with the government in recommending emerging approaches.

Social work educators and youth work experts should help design and implement PYD-based youth programming in schools and colleges (in addition to the work undertaken by NGOs). This will help the government implement the NYP in spirit and essence.

There is also a tremendous opportunity to use the PYD approach with youth living in child care institutions/residential care. At present, there is very little work done in this regard. An intervention research culture is necessary in India as it will help in documenting the learning and making changes in youth programming as per the evaluation outcomes.