Turning 21: Life chances and uncertain transitions

  Traditionally, the transition from school to work has been important for young adults, and turning 21 was recognised as the marker of adulthood in Australia, when young people had jobs—and even families of their own. Social and economic changes over the past 30 years or so have made the transition from school to work more complex and less clear-cut. This report documents the factors that shape the lives of 123 young participants in the Life Chances Study, as they turn 21. Key points •    Stereotypes about young people obscure the diverse and complex lives of 21-year-olds. This diversity is shaped by family income, gender, ethnic background and resources. The 21-year-olds included university and TAFE students, full-time and part-time workers, young parents and jobseekers. Many were both studying and working. •    Those with fewer resources were more likely to identify as adults. They faced challenges that those with more resources could avoid. While some welcomed adulthood, others felt the burden of responsibilities. •    21-year-olds continued to rely on their families for advice, and emotional and financial support. The unequal access to resources reinforced inequalities because even though most had jobs, many still relied on their parents’ financial support—if they could. •    Disadvantage need not be intergenerational. Disadvantage or advantage persisted for some families, but not for all. Childhood in a low-income family did not necessarily condemn children to continuing disadvantage. •    Definitions of a ‘successful’ transition must take into account young people’s multiple activities and their wellbeing. Most 21-year-olds aspired to full-time employment. In this study, most of those who did not have a job and were not studying or in training had caring duties or mental health issues. Labelling these young people as ‘disengaged’ does not sufficiently capture their level of activity or wellbeing. •    Transitions for 21-year-olds are uncertain, but the social and economic resources needed to address this uncertainty are not evenly distributed. Those from high-income backgrounds with strong social supports had greater ‘choice’ while negotiating their pathways than those from lower income backgrounds. •    Policies need to address multidimensional disadvantage. The findings have implications for addressing socioeconomic inequalities as well as for targeted career and vocational guidance. Background The Life Chances Study is a unique longitudinal study initiated by the Brotherhood of St Laurence in 1990 to explore the impacts of family income and associated factors on children over time. It commenced as a study of 167 infants born in inner Melbourne and has followed the families as they have moved elsewhere. In stage 10 of the study we surveyed 123 young people and their parents to see how they were dealing with the important transitions towards adulthood. We also undertook 25 interviews to explore their situations in more depth

The practise and practice of Bourdieu: the application of social theory to youth alcohol research

This paper presents theoretically informed qualitative research that investigates why young Australian females (aged 14–17) drink and how social and cultural context form the basis, rather than the periphery, of their drinking experience. We demonstrate the utility of Pierre Bourdieu's sociological framework for delving beyond the dichotomy of young people's drinking decisions as either a determination of their cultural environment or the singular result of a rational individual's independent decision-making. The paper is presented in two parts. First, we provide the interpretation, or ‘practise’, of Bourdieu's concepts through an outline and application of his complex theoretical constructs. Specifically, the concept of symbolic capital (or social power) is applied. Second, our explication of Bourdieu's ‘practice’, or epistemological contributions, offers a methodologically grounded example to other researchers seeking to attain more complete understandings of the social processes underpinning youth alcohol consumption

A critical examination of the youth foyer model for alleviating homelessness: strengthening a promising evidence base

This article assesses the quality of 15 primary studies that examined the effectiveness of youth foyer or foyer-like programs on the lives of young homeless people. The youth foyer model provides an integrated approach to tackling youth homelessness, connecting affordable accommodation to training and employment. In Australia, there is growing support from government for the development and funding of foyer programs. However to date, there has been very limited development and investment in the evidence base on the effectiveness of this model in Australia or internationally. Following an extensive literature search, we argue that there is a need to lift the standard of the evidence base of youth foyer effectiveness. We discuss two main issues: the difficulty studies had validating claims of foyer effectiveness, and limitations of research design and methodology. The implications of the lack of rigour in the research reviewed are three-fold. Firstly, youth foyer evaluation study quality could be improved by: clearer methodological and model documentation; post intervention follow-up design; comparison of data to non-randomised comparison groups; and a pre-publication peer-review process. This would be supported with clearer expectations from the research community regarding the production and assessment of grey literature. Secondly, while the standard of reporting needs to be raised, the ‘gold standard’ (i.e. randomised controlled trials) of research design in the scientific community is not a relevant benchmark in the field of homelessness research. This is due to the complexity of homelessness interventions and the inadequate funding of the homelessness research field. Greater investment in robust research and evaluation should accompany the substantial investment in youth foyer programs in order to accurately appraise the effectiveness of the youth foyer model. Thirdly, the lack of rigour in the studies reviewed suggests gaps in the service development of the youth foyers that were evaluated in the articles considered in this evidence review. The research reviewed was mostly unable to report key program mechanisms, pointing to a lack of program documentation. Ideally, strong service development practices would enable evaluative studies to explore the link between foyer model mechanisms and outcomes. Policy implications include putting in place a system for ensuring adequate program documentation with robust research design and methods, using a theoretical framework for the interpretation of findings, and adopting a peer-review process. To achieve this, public sector commissioners of youth foyers need to tighten the evaluation and research components when funding new foyers, recognising the critical relationship between service development and research