| Summary: | Decisions about participant selection are inherent to a programme based approach to positive youth development. As well as having a way of selecting potential participants, programmes often utilise some sort of exclusion criteria. This can be a sensitive issue: the wish to support young people in need by being as inclusive as possible must be balanced with an awareness of the limits of a programme's capability to safely contain disruptive or dangerous behaviours. This thesis deals with how the New Zealand positive youth development programme 'Project K' has managed the issue of exclusion. A collaborative approach informed by community psychology and action research methodologies was utilised. Understanding Project K's current practice around exclusion was the focus of the initial phase. This included a quantitative analysis of the rates of exclusion and demographics of excluded students and a qualitative component exploring stakeholder perspectives on exclusion and how decisions about exclusion are actually made. Findings emphasised the importance of having a robust process around exclusion in order to maintain safe practice and prevent unnecessary exclusion. However, unavoidable challenges were also highlighted including constraints related to limited information and time; and more complex issues related to the need for discretion and good judgment in making decisions even when there are clear criteria. The second phase of the research considered possible responses to the issue of exclusion including action aimed at improving decision making around exclusion and options for supporting currently excluded young people. As the needs of excluded young people could not be directly assessed, this phase was guided by expert interviews. Expert perspectives on the needs of excluded youth emphasized the importance of individualized, responsive, and multisystemic interventions. Overall, this research illustrates both the importance and complexity of exclusion, an issue not often the focus of research. In considering the rationale behind the practice, wider implications related to the potential challenges posed by integrating 'at-risk' young people into the positive youth development approach are highlighted.
|
|---|
