Report CoverAn estimated 85 percent of the world’s youth population live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although evidence exists that millions of young people are vulnerable to multiple levels of economic, health, and social challenges, our understandings of youth vulnerability and marginalization remains siloed. To address this gap, we systematically searched the academic and grey literature and conducted focus groups and key informant interviews (KIIs) to appraise the state of knowledge and evidence on youth vulnerability and marginalization across the international development community. Our search yielded 118 publications that met the inclusion criteria. Our review of these publications revealed valuable insight into a complex issue. We developed the Intrinsic, Contextual and Structural (ICS) approach to define vulnerability and inform our analyses and interpretation of study findings. Using the ICS approach, we identify the primary social determinants of vulnerability, describe diverse experiences of vulnerable youth, and characterize programming for vulnerable youth. Our review revealed few measures or tools for determining the vulnerability and marginalization of youth in LMICs. Although we found 38 programs across 27 countries, most programs included in our review did not identify as using a Positive Youth Development (PYD) approach. Youth-focused programs were comparably distributed across three development sectors—health; democracy and governance; and economic development and education. While 25 programs focused on one of three sectors, 13 programs included more than one sector, including three programs for adolescent girls and young women that encompassed all three sectors. Further, the interplay of intrinsic, contextual, and structural factors created additional barriers to accessing youth-focused programs, including poverty, stigma, and discrimination as well as cultural and social norms related to gender. Alternatively, our review found various enabling factors supporting vulnerable youth’s access to programs, including youth-friendly public policies, community involvement, compatibility with cultural and social norms, and creative use of media. Our review also found that multicomponent, cross-sectoral interventions tend to yield more positive outcomes than standalone or individual programs targeting a specific issue. While PYD programs are promising interventions to improve the welfare of vulnerable youth, the number of programs with high-quality evaluation design remains scarce, restricting our ability to assess program impacts. Findings from KIIs and youth focus group discussions (FGDs) supported the key themes we found in our review of the literature. Policy, practice, and research implications are discussed.

Click here for an overview of findings.

Discuss

Your name