ABSTRACT
Critical agency (CA) refers to an individual's feeling of power in relation to social inequalities. Research has demonstrated that high CA is associated with positive adolescent outcomes, however, less is known about what supports are important for its development. Moreover, a large majority of the literature is based on studies from the US and various countries in Africa; although the UK is saturated with inequalities there is little research within a UK context. In this paper we examine (a) the validity of using an existing measure of CA with a sample of UK adolescents and (b) the extent to which resilience supports account for variance in CA. Our analysis identified two distinct factors of CA: justice-oriented and community-oriented. High CA in both factors was explained by resilience supports associated with peer relationships (p < 0.01). Our findings push us towards new relational, ecological ways of understanding adolescent CA. We close by instantiating a translational framework for those devising policies in support of youth resilience and CA. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04578-1.
ABSTRACT
Young adults are often scapegoated for not complying with COVID-19 mitigation strategies. While studies have investigated what predicts this population's compliance and non-compliance, they have largely excluded the insights of African young people living in South African townships. Given this, it is unclear what places young adult South African township dwellers at risk for not complying with physical distancing, face masking and handwashing, or what enables resilience to those risks. To remedy this uncertainty, the current article reports a secondary analysis of transcripts (n=119) that document telephonic interviews in June and October 2020 with 24 emerging adults (average age: 20 years) who participated in the Resilient Youth in Stressed Environments (RYSE) study. The secondary analysis, which was inductively thematic, pointed to compliance being threatened by forgetfulness;preventive measures conflicting with personal/collective style;and structural constraints. Resilience to these compliance risks lay in young people's capacity to regulate their behaviour and in the immediate social ecology's capacity to co-regulate young people's health behaviours. These findings discourage health interventions that are focused on the individual. More optimal public health initiatives will be responsive to the risks and resilience-enablers associated with young people and the social, institutional, and physical ecologies to which young people are connected.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 (C-19) pandemic, the South African government instituted strict lockdown and related legislation. Although this response was well intended, many believed it advanced children's vulnerability to abuse and neglect. This article interrogates these concerns. It investigates how C-19 legislation enabled, or constrained, South African children's protection from abuse and neglect and appraises the findings from a social-ecological resilience perspective with the aim of advancing child protection in times of emergency. METHOD: The authors conducted a rapid review of the legislation, directives and regulations pertaining to South Africa's strict lockdown (15 March to 31 May 2020). They searched two databases (SA Government platform and LexisNexus) and identified 140 documents for potential inclusion. Following full-text screening, 17 documents were reviewed. Document analysis was used to extract relevant themes. FINDINGS: The regulations and directives that informed South Africa's strict lockdown offered three protective pathways. They (i) limited C-19 contagion and championed physical health; (ii) ensured uninterrupted protection (legal and statutory) for children at risk of abuse; and (iii) advanced social protection measures available to disadvantaged households. CONCLUSION: C-19 legislation has potential to advance children's protection from abuse and neglect during emergency times. However, this potential will be curtailed if C-19 legislation is inadequately operationalised and/or prioritises physical health to the detriment of children's intellectual, emotional, social and security needs. To overcome such risks, social ecologies must work with legislators to co-design and co-operationalise C-19 legislation that will not only protect children, but advance their resilience.