Views about the Youth
Globally the views and popular notions about adolescents are by and large negatives in nature. Consider the US representative public opinion about its young people. When asked to caricature the characteristics of today’s youths, a majority of adults used undermining and negative terms such as “irresponsible,” “lazy,” and “disrespectful” (Public Agenda, 1999). In the late 1950s, adolescents were even identified as more disliked than Communists(Freidenberg,1959). Equally unflattering were the words most often thought of in relation to adolescent behavior. These included the use of phrases like wild behavior, sex, drugs, and violence (Bostrom, 2000). Less than half of the adults in the United States believe that the next generation of young people will make the country a better place (Public Agenda.1999).
Present-day opinion about young people is remarkably affected by theory and considerations involved in cultural dynamics. Conventional theoretical models on adolescent development are freely intermingled with the concepts and labeling of this period of youth milestone as being one of “storm and stress”.This phrase is frequently used to summarize all of the physical, emotional, and social changes that occur during adolescence (Santrock, 1993). Such socio-psychological frameworks have virtually determined the shape of professional orientation toward pathology in understanding adolescent development. Adolescence in American society has been comfortably ‘medicalized’ into a pathologic condition where adolescence itself is reckoned as a significant causal factor of problems (Hill & Dennis, 1992). This condition has reduced adolescence as a growth stage singly defined by its symptomatic ‘problems.’ However, despite popular perception, adolescence is not a state of pathology (Newcomb, 1996; Peel, 1990). Adolescence is actually a normal, socially defined, phase of life wherein behavior is rational and understandable (Lewinsohn et al, 1993).
Stereotypes, well defined but rigid, are based on broad generalizations and more often than do not accommodate individual realities; however the way they are used, stereotypes have uncanny ability to short shrift detailed analysis and as a result, they serve as powerful tools to form impressions images about a group of people-young people being the most significant ‘victims’. Stereotypes convey truncated images of youth characteristics and behaviors and, therefore, can only be an imperfect tool to understand youth behavior in any societal context. Any analysis which aims at being realistic and empathetic to young people needs to logically limit the use of stereotypes. Additionally, the analysis of the behavior patterns of youth is also plagued by several other complex stereotypes in regard to sexual orientation, religious orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, residential location(urban, suburban, and rural), and socioeconomic status. For instance biases in respect of various groups of youths can impact academic expectations and affect the educational opportunities thrown open to such youths. Which may, in turn, make them active in anti-social behavior. Similarly, stereotype biases about urban, suburban, and rural youths can lead policy-making concerning the anti-social behavior of such youths entirely astray. Another popular instance of bias is observed on account of gender differences; normally this affects adversely several opportunities which would have been otherwise available to girls e.g. educational, sports, employment, etc. This may also lead to the incidence of anti-social behavior amongst girls; for instance, tendencies to resort to prostitution for earning a living. Thus stereotypes of all categories are to be relied only upon for conceptual understanding of the group and group analysis of facts, particularly those that are at divergence with stereotypes, turn critical in any analysis. This paper examines the evolution of youth policy in relation to these stereotypes.
Youth Policy in the Present day
Changes in social trends are one of the triggers for an examination of the causes of policymaking in relation to youth in the present day. Adolescence is as much a social phenomenon as it is biological or psychological. As societies change, so does the definition of adolescence (Violato,1992). These include changes in family patterns, changes in education, changes in the normal experiences of young people and wider influences such as media and socio-economic influences but to name a few (Rutter et al, 2004). Accordingly, the youth policy undergoes changes.
Take the Anti-Social Behaviour policy of the government, for instance. The same has been informed of several theoretical considerations. It can be seen that major changes to family systems such as an increase in divorce rates have led to the rise of single-parent families and in turn the increase of anti-social behavior. More than ever young people are likely to experiment with illegal drugs, due to peer, media, and other influences. Calabrese (1987) states that youth alienation is a “… major problem of contemporary society, yet the problem is not taken seriously (p. 929).” In fact, alienation and isolation have become an anticipated process in adolescent development (Sprinthall & Collins,1984) and has been identified in studies as long as forty years ago(Colliers & Lawence,1951). Schorr (1988) lists the deleterious effects of disenfranchising adolescents by defining such interpretations and behavior as rotten outcomes, including high rates of adolescent violent crime, leaving school early, and teen pregnancy. Schorr’s rotten outcomes are abundantly reiterated while documenting the mental and physical health declines of adolescents in very many studies (Hechinger, 1992, Hurrelman & Losel, 1990) Social policy and more important all partnering forces need appropriate outlook to make their interventions more emphatic and target improvement of family life and the social environment and be responsive to adolescents so as to minimize rotten outcomes—as well as maximize the potential for this disfranchised, high-risk population.
Farrington, D.P. (1995) lists the strongest childhood predictors of delinquency as antisocial behavior, impulsivity, low IQ, poverty, and poor family management at ages 8-10, as well as having a delinquent sibling or a convicted parent. Gottfredson, M.R, & Hirschi, T. (1994) note three well-established research trends: 1) most problem behaviors tend to peak early in life, and then decline; 2) youth committing certain types of problem behaviors are much more likely to commit others; 3) and the stability of anti-social acts across the life-span. They write, “A valid theory of adolescent problem behaviors must see them for what they are – largely petty, typically not completed, usually of little lasting or substantial benefit to the actor, always jeopardizing long-term interests for the interests of the moment” (p. 43). Moffitt, T.E. (1993) explores two seemingly contradictory facts about antisocial behavior: 1) antisocial behavior seems fairly constant over the lifespan, and 2) adolescents are 10 times more likely to commit anti-social actions than any other point in the life-span. Patterson, G. R. (1996) summarizes past struggles to develop a theory capable of explaining delinquent and antisocial behavior. Challenges to developing a developmental model were presented, focusing on the concepts of stability and change. Those identified as having the highest risk for later antisocial behavior were temperamentally difficult infants raised by unskilled mothers. Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., & Weihur, A. (1993) found that gang members were more likely to live in non-family arrangements and were more likely to feel that teachers’ perceptions of them were negative. Ray, Jeffery, C.(1998)reviews twenty-one recent works and compares their approaches, and identifies that the main issues are early identification of juvenile delinquents who go on to careers of serious violence, and interdisciplinary application of modern scientific knowledge to the problem of violence is needed as a corrective.
As the following website provides a summary bid’s eye view of the youth policies followed by the UK government as below:
“Labour’s second term in office has been arguably marked by an emphasis on putting into practice the recommendations emerging from work done by the Social Exclusion Unit in respect of young people. The report of the Policy Action Team on Young People, Policy Action Team (PAT) 12: Young People (2000) looked at how Government could improve better coordination of policies affecting children and young people and improve services for young people and how they could be developed to help prevent social exclusion. It recommended the setting up of a Youth Unit. The report showed that children and families at risk of running into severe difficulties can be identified early through known risk factors and that effective interventions can often improve their prospects. It argued for better local coordination in identifying the needs of young people and a shift of resources into prevention activities, both to help parents and children deal with problems before they become acute and to promote effective cross-cutting interventions for children and young people most at risk.
The main policy thrusts currently lie in:
- Better co-ordination of policies affecting young people.
- Further measures to widen access to post-16 education.
- Targeting of those perceived to be at greatest risk of social exclusion through early interventions.
- Management of anti-social behavior through families.
- Greater focus on participation and active citizenship”(Youth,2007)
The above amply exhibits the fact that the government is delving into the root causes of the youth issues and trying to evolve a policy that is effective in actual solutions of youth problems so as to target their healthy civic participation in today’s UK. In concrete terms the objectives of youth policymaking can be reiterated in the words of the same website as below:
“The government’s aim is that by 2010, 50% of the population should enter higher education by the age of 30. There are many initiatives associated with this goal. For example, the Excellence Challenge is a 3-year program that aims to increase the number of young people from poorer backgrounds who apply for and enter higher education. There is now much more of a focus, in terms of education, on the ‘knowledge economy’ and a movement away from education as a one-size-fits-all structure. To this end there are targets about the level of attainment young people should reach (including individual pupil-level targeting), Learning Mentors whose role is to identify and support children needing additional help at school, and measures to encourage pupils to take greater control of their own learning, as ‘consumers’ of education. There are further developments towards the idea of graduation from secondary school at 18, based on the US model, but ensuring that all school graduates have some form of general or vocational qualification. A nationwide consultation on the 14-19 Curriculum Green Paper is nearing completion and will provide a means of achieving this (developing from Curriculum 2000 ). The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, which came into force on 1 September, removes the previous exemption of education from the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act”.
The above government stance in youth policy making reveals that it is recognized that, self-determination is a core value of social work and consistent with the NASW Code of Ethics(Weick&Pope,1988). Self-determination demonstrates respect for the adolescent client and should be incorporated in intervention goals and processes. Inclusion of self-determination in practice would give responsibility to the adolescent to actively participate in the decision-making process and intervention outcomes (Bush & Gordon,1982).
Adolescents have long been thought of as incompetent and incapable as documented in medical texts as early as the 1840s and 1850s(Kett,1977). In contrast, the use of a strengths approach means recognizing that adolescent clients are competent (Maluccio,1981). Research on protective factors examines ways that adolescents with a history of psychopathology are capable of surviving in adverse environments. Rutter (1985) defines protective factors as, “… influences that modify, ameliorate, or alter a person’s response to some environmental hazard that predisposes to a maladaptive outcome” (p. 600). Adolescents have resilience, however, not enough is known about this aspect of the adolescent. Beardslee and Podorefosky (1988) have identified three qualities of resilient adolescents, (1.) self-understanding, (2.) commitment to relationships, and (3.) ability to think and act separately from parents. The government policy should reorient further to reflect the above nuances.
Works Cited
Public Agenda. (1999). Kids these days: What Americans really think about the next generation. Web.
Friedenberg, E. Z. (1959). The Vanishing Adolescent. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Bostrom, M. (2000). Teenhood: Understanding attitudes toward those transitioning from childhood to adulthood. Washington, DC: Frameworks Institute.
Santrock, J. (1993). Adolescents. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown & Benchmark.
Hill, R. F., & Dennis, F. J. (1992). Adolescence as a culture-bound syndrome. Social Science and Medicine, 35(1), 73-80.
Newcomb, M. D. (1996). Adolescence: Pathologizing a normal process. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 482-490.
Peel, S. (1990). Diseasing of America. Boston, MA: Lexington Books.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Hops, H., Roberts, R. E., Seeley, J. R., & Andrews, J. A. (1993). Adolescent psychopathology: I. Prevalence and incidence of depression and other DSM-III-R disorders in high school students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 133-144.
Violato, C. (1992). History of adolescence. In S. B. Friedman, M. Fisher, & S. K. Schonberg (Eds.), Comprehensive Adolescent Health Care (pp. 3-6). St. Louis, MO: Quality Medical Publishing, Inc.
Rutter, J., Giller, H., and Hagell, A. (2004). Antisocial Behavior By Young People. Cambridge University Press.
Calabrese, R. L. (1987). Adolescence: A growth period conducive to alienation. Adolescence, 22(88), 929-937.
Sprinthall, N. A., & Collins, W. A. (1984). Adolescent Psychology: A Developmental View. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishers.
Collier, R. M., & Lawrence, H. P. (1951). The adolescent feeling of social isolation. Education Theory, 1, 106-115.
Schorr, L. B. (1988). Within Our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
Hechinger, F. M. (1992). Fateful Choices: Healthy Youth for the 21st Century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Hurrelman, K., & Losel, F. (1990). Basic issues and problems of health in adolescence. In K. Hurrelman & F. Losel (Eds.), Health Hazards in Adolescence (pp. 1-24). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Farrington, D.P. (1995). The Twelfth Jack Tizard Memorial Lecture: The development of offending and antisocial behavior from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 360, 929-964.
Gottfredson, M.R, & Hirschi, T. (1994). A general theory of adolescent problem behavior: Problems and prospects. In R.D. Ketterlinus & M.E. Lamb (Eds.) Adolescent problem behaviors: Issues and research. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence –limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Patterson, G. R. (1996). Some characteristics of a developmental theory for early-onset delinquency. In M.F. Lenzenweger & J.J. Haugaard (Eds.) Frontiers of developmental psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Esbensen, F., Huizinga, D., & Weihur, A. (1993). Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in explanatory factors. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9, 94-116.
Ray, Jeffery, C.(1998). Prevention of Juvenile Violence: A Critical Review of Current Scientific Strategies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, v28 n1-2 p1-28.
Youth Policies in the UK:A Chronological Map.(2007). Web.
Weick, A., & Pope, L. (1988). Knowing what’s best: A new look at self-determination. Social Casework, 69(1), 10-16.
Bush, M., & Gordon, A. C. (1982). The case for involving children in child welfare decisions. Social Work, 27(4), 309-314.
Kett, J. F. (1977). Rites of Passage: Adolescence in America 1790 to the Present. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Maluccio, A. N. (1981). Promoting competence in clients. New York: Free Press.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.
Beardslee, W. R., & Podorefsky, D. (1988). Resilient adolescents whose parents have serious affective and other psychiatric disorders: Importance of self-understanding and relationships. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(1), 63-69.