There are debates about whether the word “vulnerable” is the correct term to use when describing rangatahi who face risks and challenges across a broad range of domains such as education, employment, health, access to safe housing, safe transitions to adulthood, exposure to violence and substance abuse and offending (Rizvi, 2015).
Some suggest that this word is too general to be useful. They say all rangatahi are vulnerable because they are dependent on others to help them have their needs met (Daniels, 2010). Others argue that it is stigmatising and its meaning is not clear (Becroft, 2016; Cole, 2016; Foster & Spencer, 2011), while it is also suggested that the term undermines or hides rangatahi strengths and capacity. On the other side, some argue that not all rangatahi have equal access to the resources and supports critical to positive development. As a result, these rangatahi have higher levels of risk which makes them especially vulnerable throughout their lives (Gorur, 2015; Felitti et al., 2014; Smyth, 2013). Some of the factors that make rangatahi vulnerable which are beyond their control are explored elsewhere (see Structural thinking). We can think about vulnerability in this way:
In this kete we use this definition of vulnerability: The rangatahi who we focus on are made vulnerable because of exposure to very high, non-normative levels of risk across multiple areas in their lives. These risks are usually beyond their control. While they need to rely on adults to help them positively address these multiple challenges, many find that the adults around them are not willing or able to protect them. This lack of support aggravates their vulnerability and makes it incredibly difficult for them to reach their full potential.
Why is it so important to think about vulnerability?
In Aotearoa, as in other Western countries, there is growing interest in what will happen to rangatahi who have been left behind as a result of decades of social and economic reform. In the recent economic environment this has become more pressing. Despite the appeal of the ‘team of 5 million’ idea that sought to unite our country in a common cause during the COVID crisis, it is clear that vulnerable rangatahi entered the pandemic and the economic and environmental challenges that have followed at a disadvantage. Responses to these issues have not changed this; their circumstances have not improved. In fact, foodbanks and service providers tell us that vulnerable rangatahi are slipping even further behind those who entered this period with more resources. The groups that most often miss out are the tamariki and rangatahi of poor to low-middle income whānau and within this, there is inequality based around ethnicity. Rangatahi Māori in particular face disadvantages which accentuate their vulnerability.
Vulnerable rangatahi carry the risk burdens from institutional racism, poverty, marginalisation, and exclusion into adulthood (see Structural thinking). High levels of exposure to adverse experiences at home, at school, and in the neighbourhood, during childhood compromise good adult- hood outcomes (Metzler et al., 2017; Osgood, et al., 2005).
We like to think of ourselves as a country that values fairness, where everyone can find resources and supports that help them thrive. But we know this is not the case. Reports in the media about the housing crisis, challenges rangatahi face in finding places in schools that will welcome and support them, difficulties in finding health care, and so on, remind us daily that vulnerable rangatahi fare no better here than they do overseas. This means our values about fairness do not work out in reality for the rangatahi we work with. A key task for us as kaimahi is to actively work to create more fairness for these rangatahi.
How do we take account of this vulnerability in our mahi?
What this means is that kaimahi need to take time to learn about all the factors that shape rangatahi lives and the opportunities and risks that are present. It also means looking beneath surface behaviour to understand the underlying pressures and demands that influence their actions and behaviours, rather than just reacting to disruptive behaviour. Vulnerability is complex and has multiple layers. Transparency is important here, so we ensure we understand the issue and all its complexity and also what the best outcome is from the perspective of the rangatahi we work with (see Person centred theory; Structural thinking; Māori centred approaches; Accelerated and compressed transitions; Understanding and working with resistance).
How do I use these ideas in my mahi?
Our youth health agency works with vulnerable rangatahi; many of these rangatahi have grown up in the care system and they have few material and social resources to draw on to manage their challenges. They have had disrupted relationships and have been let down by adults who were in caring roles. Our agency works on a range of things with rangatahi, such as, responding to their health needs, providing practical and emotional support through individual and group sessions and employment preparation programmes. At one of our team meetings one of the kaimahi who works with rangatahi to prepare them for employment, shared his perspective on the vulnerability of the rangatahi we work with and how many struggled to find support from trusted adults. He said that in supporting them to prepare themselves for work and helping them learn life skills, he noted that they had few people in their network who could support them in their learning and in managing the challenges they faced. This meant they relied on our services and other services to find resources and support.
This kaimahi challenged us to think about how we could provide better support to rangatahi and help them achieve both short and long-term goals. He suggested that we could learn more about the social and cultural networks in our community to see if we could find people in these networks who could support rangatahi in an ongoing way. These people could take on mentoring roles and be available to support rangatahi in learning life skills. He suggested that we could locate cultural networks as well, given that the rangatahi in our agency came from diverse cultural backgrounds. It was exciting to be part of this initiative and to find ways that we could support rangatahi to experience a sense of belonging and connection, and to find people who could be an enduring presence by providing them with ongoing support, opening up opportunities, and being there when they needed to sort out issues and find solutions to these.
Here are some places to look for more information
- Becroft, A. (2016). Ministry for Vulnerable Children name ‘stigmatising and labelling’. https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/faces-of-innocents/82699004/ministry-for-vulnerable-children-name-stigmatising-and-labelling
- Cole, A. (2016). All of us are vulnerable, but some are more vulnerable than others: The political ambiguity of vulnerability studies, an ambivalent critique. Critical Horizons, 17, 260-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2016.1153896
- Daniels, B. (2010). Concepts of adversity, risk, vulnerability and resilience: A discussion in the context of ‘Child Protection System’. Social Policy & Society, 9, 231-241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746409990364
- Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D, Spitz, A, Edwards, V., & Fernandes- Alcantara, A. (1998). Vulnerable youth: Background and policies. Congressional Research Service, Washington, US.
- Foster, K. & Spencer, D. (2011). At risk of what? Possibilities over probabilities in the study of young lives. Journal of Youth Studies, 14, 1, 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2010.506527
- Gorur, R. (2015). Vulnerability: Construct, complexity and consequences. In K. ti Riele & R. Gorur (Eds.), Interrogating conceptions of ‘vulnerable youth’ in theory, policy and practice. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
- Metzler, M., Merrick, M., Klevens, J., Ports, K., & Ford, D. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences and life opportunities: Shifting the narrative. Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.021
- Munford, R. & Sanders, J. (2019). The youth transitions study: Final report. Technical Report 39. Massey University, New Zealand. https://youthsay.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Youth-Transitions-Study-Final-Report.pdf
- Osgood, W., Foster, M. Flanagan, C., & Gretchen, R. (Eds.) (2005). On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Rizvi, F. (2015). Foreword. In K. ti Riele and R. Gorur (Eds.), Interrogating conceptions of ‘vulnerable youth’ in theory, policy and practice. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.
- Smyth, P. (2013). A different approach to high-risk youths. Social Work Today, 13, 6,10. https://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/111113p10.shtml
We thank the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for funding the research that created this resource (MAUX2006).
This resource was developed by Professor Jackie Sanders. It was refined with input from Donna MacNicol, Te Aroha Noa Community Services, Justina Webster, Dr Linda Liebenberg, Professor Robyn Munford, Dr Jayne Mercier, Davinia Abbott and the team at Dingwall Trust Launch Programme & Kapiti Youth Support.
Citation: Sanders, J. with MacNicol, D., Webster, J., Munford, R. Liebenberg, L., Mercier, J., Abbott, D. and the Dingwall Trust Launch Team & Kapiti Youth Support (2023). Vulnerability. Relational Resources for Change, https://youthsay.co.nz/rbp-theories/vulnerability/
CC BY-NC-ND Licensed using Creative Commons Licensing. Relational Resources for Change Project. You are welcome to use this resource individually, in your teams and in supervision/coaching/critical reflection, you should acknowledge the source using the above citation. You may not change this document, use it to develop your own external training, or for commercial purposes (e.g by charging a fee).
