{"id":33799,"date":"2026-06-19T05:55:35","date_gmt":"2026-06-19T05:55:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/?page_id=33799"},"modified":"2026-06-19T08:26:59","modified_gmt":"2026-06-19T08:26:59","slug":"snippet-2026-issue-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/snippet-2026-issue-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Snippet 2026 Issue 2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\t\t\tSSR Snippet – June 2026 Issue 2\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t\"Snippet2026Jun\"\n

\n\t\t\tGood Practices in Positive Youth Development Programmes for Youths Not in Education, Employment or Training\t<\/h2>\n

\n\t\t\tCheang Sze Yan (Fei Yue Community Services)\t<\/h6>\n
\n\t\t\tKeywords: Positive Youth Development (PYD), NEET youths (Not in Education, Employment or Training), youth-centred programmes, good practice\t<\/h6>\n

\n\t\t\tIntroduction\t<\/h4>\n\t

Singapore’s competitive and meritocratic society places immense pressure on youth to excel academically and professionally. However, not all youth thrive in this environment. According to the Ministry of Manpower’s Labour Force Survey, approximately 3.8% of young people aged 15-24 is classified as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), meaning that they are neither working nor engaged in education or skills-based training (Ministry of Manpower, 2026).<\/p>\n

As at 31 March 2026, Fei Yue is journeying with approximately 500 youth who have dropped out from school and employment. Reasons behind youth disengagement from school and work are often complex and multifaceted. L\u0151rinc et al. (2020) indicated personal challenges, such as mental health struggles, personal and familial illnesses, behavioural issues, and family breakdowns, as common barriers to youth engagement in education or employment. Most of the reasons for school and work disengagement cited by the youth whom Fei Yue supports align with these findings, primarily involving personal and familial challenges. However, in recent years, poor social connections in the formal school setting (e.g., bullying, difficulty integrating) are observed as another common reason for school disengagement. This has contributed to these youth spending time on the streets, engaging in at-risk behaviours, and\/or reduced mental wellbeing.<\/p>\n

A severe and extreme subset of these youth are hidden youth. Hidden youth represent another vulnerable demographic, characterised by prolonged social withdrawal and disengagement from both work and education for a minimum of six months (Khiatani et al., 2023). These individuals often experience feelings of exclusion, diminished self-worth, and a lack of motivation, which further perpetuate their isolation and disengagement from society (Norasakkunkit & Uchida, 2011; Wong, 2020). Fei Yue’s social service practitioners working with hidden youth observed that mental health concerns are not the primary drivers of these youth’s social isolation. Instead, their main struggle is poor social health, i.e., the ability to interact well and build meaningful relationships with others (Neoh et al., 2023).<\/p>\n

Fei Yue sees youth disengagement from school and work as a symptom of their lack of support and opportunities to meet developmental needs. In response to these challenges, Fei Yue has introduced four interest-based programmes grounded in the Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework. PYD shifts the focus from addressing deficits to nurturing strengths, emphasising the development of 5Cs (Confidence, Competence, Connection, Character, and Compassion) (Ciocanel et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2017).<\/p>\n

Fei Yue’s interest-based programmes, such as the Zoo Career Exposure Programme, Baking Programme, Fishing Programme, and Digital Media Programme, aim to support the reintegration of NEET and hidden youths by providing vocational training, emotional support, and opportunities for relationship-building. These programmes align with PYD’s strengths-based approach, fostering youth’s assets, resilience and social-emotional competencies.<\/p>\n

This article shares good practices identified by programme facilitators and youth participants involved in these interest-based programmes designed based on PYD principles. It aims to contribute to the broader understanding of how PYD can be implemented in Singapore for practitioners and policymakers.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tLiterature Review\t<\/h4>\n\t

Positive Youth Development (PYD) Framework<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In the 20th century, researchers primarily used deficit models that focused on pathology, overlooking youth strengths and potentially harming them by labelling them as problematic (Burkhard et al., 2020; Shek et al., 2019). In response, researchers in the 1990s saw the rise of a new psychological domain emphasising human potential, which posits that all adolescents have strengths and capabilities that can be nurtured for positive youth development (Shek et al., 2019).<\/p>\n

The PYD framework, rooted in the belief that all youths have the potential to thrive when provided with the right support and opportunities, therefore provides practitioners with a developmentally appropriate lens to understand the root causes of disengagement. Unlike deficit-focused approaches, PYD adopts a strengths-based perspective that nurtures the Five “C”s: Confidence, Connection, Competence, Compassion, and Character (Benson et al., 2006; Ciocanel et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2017) (see Table 1 for definitions of the five “C”s).<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tTable 1: Positive Youth Development – The Five “C”s\t<\/h6>\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
“C”<\/td>\nDefinition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Competence<\/td>\nPositive view of self in specific domains such as social, academic, cognitive, and vocational<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Confidence<\/td>\nAn overall positive self-worth and self-efficacy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Connection<\/td>\nPositive bi-directional relationship with people and institutions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Character<\/td>\nRespect for societal and cultural rules, possess standards for correct behaviours, morality, and integrity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Caring<\/td>\nSense of sympathy and empathy for others<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Source: Lerner & Lerner (2013)<\/p>\n

Programmes aligned with PYD principles have demonstrated positive outcomes in psychological wellbeing and academic achievement (Ciocanel et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2017). For instance, youths who participate in PYD programmes often exhibit improved interpersonal skills, better problem-solving skills, and stronger relationships with peers and mentors (Taylor et al., 2017).<\/p>\n

Another key strength of the PYD framework is its focus on holistic development, which recognises that youths’ wellbeing is influenced by multiple domains, including family, school, and community. This lens is useful in programme development as practitioners are challenged to go beyond individual-level change to consider the effects of these domains on the youth. This creates an opportunity for programmes to be more thorough as stakeholders from these systems could be engaged to support youth development.<\/p>\n

Fei Yue observed that this perspective resonated more strongly with youth. While addressing risk behaviours and deficits remains important, Fei Yue’s PYD-aligned programmes are designed to build internal and external assets to enable youth to thrive in their environments.<\/p>\n

Good Practices within Positive Youth Development Programmes<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Effective youth development programmes are characterised by their ability to engage youths, foster leadership, and create inclusive environments. Research has identified several key practices that contribute to the success of such programmes. For instance, engaging youth by involving them in preparation and facilitation, creating leadership opportunities with clear roles and room for learning from failure, recognising and addressing adults’ resistance to youth voice through active listening, navigating youth-adult boundaries with community norms and shared experiences, and implementing intentional retention and onboarding strategies such as crash courses (Wu et al., 2022). These approaches align with the PYD as they encourage youths to develop skills, relationships, and confidence through active participation.<\/p>\n

In another study, Williford and colleagues (2023) found that students feel more connected to schools when adults play a key role in building a welcoming and safe environment by embracing diverse viewpoints and being approachable. This finding aligns with Montreuil et al.’s (2018) study, in which coordinators and youths alike emphasised the importance of mutual sharing in building trust and creating safe spaces that extend beyond structured workshops. As a result, the co-creation of a safe environment, where the youths can freely express themselves without fear of judgments or worry, enabled meaningful engagement with the programme.<\/p>\n

Finally, Greene and Seefeldt’s study (2023) highlighted how programme staff intentionally invited a diverse group of professionals to share their personal and career journeys with youth participants. This approach enriched the youths’ learning experiences and empowered them to explore and pursue new career opportunities. Fei Yue’s interest-based programmes foster youth development through three key practices, which include building relationships, providing multidimensional support, and collaborating with stakeholders. These approaches align with PYD principles, empowering the youths to thrive through connection, competence, and confidence.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tMethods\t<\/h4>\n\t

This study conducted a thematic analysis of two qualitative datasets to examine the experiences, insights, and recommendations of programme facilitators and youth participants in Fei Yue’s interest-based programmes. Dataset 1 comprised facilitator perspectives from four programmes: the Zoo Career Exposure Programme (ZCEP), Baking Programme (BP), Fishing Programme (FP), and Digital Media Programme (DMP). Dataset 2 focused solely on youth experiences from two programmes: the ZCEP and the BP. Analysing these qualitative datasets allowed for a deeper exploration of the contextual factors and elicitation of more nuanced perspectives shaping programme implementation and outcomes.<\/p>\n

Dataset 1: Facilitator Perspectives<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The first dataset comprises semi-structured interviews with six programme facilitators, originally collected to capture their firsthand experiences and professional insights. Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams from December 2022 to February 2023, with each interview lasting approximately 45 minutes. These interviews were designed to encourage open-ended discussions, enabling facilitators to elaborate on their roles, challenges, and suggestions for programme improvement. The sample includes six facilitators from Fei Yue Community Services (FYCS), each directly involved in the planning or facilitation of at least one programme iteration within 12 months before the interview. Their roles spanned from helming the programme as an overall in-charge to programme design and delivery. All facilitators were proficient in English and provided informed consent. Their years of experience in working with youths ranged from 10 months to more than 10 years.<\/p>\n

Dataset 2: Youth Experiences<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The second dataset1<\/sup> focuses on youth participants, incorporating semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions to explore their experiences, insights, and recommendations. This dataset includes 10 youths who participated in individual interviews and 13 youths who joined focus group discussions. Post-programme focus group discussions were selected as a method of data collection to increase youth participation in the study. In cases where this is not possible, individual interviews were arranged. Data were collected from June 2022 to September 2023, and a total of 10 interviews and four focus groups were completed.<\/p>\n

Each structured programme spanned approximately three months. Participants were invited from the zoo and baking programmes. They were aged 14 to 19 and had completed the programmes with an attendance rate of 63% to 75%. Seventy-four percent of the youths were from the zoo programme, while the remaining 26% were from the baking programme. Written informed consent was obtained from the youths and their parents or guardians for ethical compliance.<\/p>\n

The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. This involved identifying and organising recurring themes from the data, which were then cross-referenced with established good practices in youth programmes.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tFindings and Analysis\t<\/h4>\n
\n\t\t\tFigure 1: A Framework for Effective PYD Programmes: Supporting NEET Youths\t<\/h6>\n\t

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\t

Interview and focus group discussion data revealed three key themes that highlighted the good practices identified by programme facilitators and youth participants: (i) building relationships, (ii) providing physical, emotional, and instrumental support, and (iii) collaborating with stakeholders. Each of these themes is discussed in detail below, with a focus on their alignment with the PYD framework and their implications for practice (refer to Figure 1).<\/p>\n

Building Relationships<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Facilitators emphasised the critical role of relationship-building in fostering youth engagement and participation. They therefore actively connect the youths when they participate in programmes to build their sense of belonging and support systems. This aligns with the PYD principle of connection, which highlights the importance of supportive, reciprocal relationships in youths’ development. To achieve this, facilitators employed several strategies for building relationships, including establishing shared group chats to maintain ongoing communication, organising icebreakers, and creating opportunities for collaborative learning. For instance, in the DMP, youths take on independent roles (e.g., model or photographer), where each role requires them to communicate and exchange ideas (i.e., “connect”), turning the notions of “connection” into tangible, skill-building interactions.<\/p>\n

For example, facilitator (1) noted:<\/p>\n

Once they find that they become more comfortable and then things naturally become better for them. They become more engaged.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This underscores how structured relationship-building creates an environment where youths could practice social competencies in safe space.<\/p>\n

The impact of these strategies was evident in the experiences of the youths themselves. For instance, youth (7) shared:<\/p>\n

So I have very bad social anxiety. This programme has been like my way of coming out and like socialising with people… try to work on my social skills.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here, the programme’s intentional practice is to enable youths to actively develop confidence and competence in social interactions. The focus is to equip them with the tools to connect meaningfully with peers and mentors.<\/p>\n

Providing Multidimensional Support – Physical, Emotional, and Instrumental<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The second area focuses on the need for multi-dimensional support for these youths, including physical, emotional, and instrumental assistance, in alignment with PYD principles of competence and confidence. It emphasises the importance of addressing youths’ holistic needs.<\/p>\n

Facilitators described how they adapted the physical environment to accommodate the participants’ sensory sensitivities, such as strong smells, and monitored their health and fatigue levels. For example, in the ZCEP, facilitators were mindful of youths who might be overwhelmed by the sensory stimuli of the zoo environment. In such cases, facilitators would step in to provide support by setting them aside to rest, offering food and drinks, contacting their guardian, and checking if they wished to continue with the programme. Facilitator (4) explained:<\/p>\n

[Zoo] may also have very strong smells because these trigger youths. So, if usually the worker be like OK, let me go and check in with the youth. Then check in the youth already, come back, OK. Yeah, the youth says it’s OK.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This practice reflects the PYD principle of competence, as it ensures that youths are provided with an enabling environment where they can regulate their emotions and engage effectively in the programme. The significance of this approach was further underscored by the youths themselves, who recognised and appreciated the supportive role of youth workers. For instance, two youths reflected:<\/p>\n

[The youth worker] said okay, you don’t have to do this, but if you want, you can take your own sweet time. (Youth 14)<\/p>\n

If we look down or seem tired, they’ll come to us and ask, ‘Are you okay?’. (Youth 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Beyond building relationships, providing emotional support was another critical component of the programmes. Facilitators emphasised the importance of respecting the youths’ autonomy and tailoring engagement to their comfort levels. For instance, if a youth expressed disinterest in a particular activity, such as fishing, facilitators would not push them to participate. Instead, they would explore alternative activities that aligned with the youth’s interests. This approach is made possible by maintaining a low facilitator-to-youth ratio, typically one facilitator for every one to three youths, which allows for individualised support and adaptability. This practice aligns with the PYD principle of confidence, as it empowers youths to make choices and assert their preferences, fostering a sense of agency and self-worth.<\/p>\n

The impact of this supportive environment was further illustrated by the youths themselves. One youth (8) shared:<\/p>\n

They stay with us and help us with stuff we don’t know… Like answering questions… Because I have questions but I don’t dare to ask… [It] makes me anxious. So, like, [the facilitator] just helps me say instead.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This reflection underscores how emotional support, particularly through proactive, non-judgmental guidance, can mitigate anxiety and create opportunities for youths to engage more confidently. By addressing both practical and emotional barriers, facilitators cultivated a space where the youths felt valued and understood, fostering not only participation but also personal growth.<\/p>\n

Additionally, providing instrumental support involved scaffolding learning through structured activities, such as resume-writing sessions, and using debriefs to consolidate learning and gather feedback. These practices helped the youths develop predictability, skill-building, and cognitive readiness, which are essential for their long-term success. For example, one facilitator (2) described how debrief sessions allowed youths to reflect on their experiences and identify areas for growth:<\/p>\n

And then we also have debrief to help us to understand from youths’ point of view: what is something that they pick up and how we can help them to do the next session differently to help them to achieve a better outcome for them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The impact of hands-on, vocational exposure was particularly salient for the youths. As two youths noted:<\/p>\n

There’s more hands-on [activities]… That’s how we learn, by hands-on. (Youth 2)<\/p>\n

I think [it is] also easier for us to learn because it’s hands-on… you get to try doing things that zoo workers do. (Youth 23)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This practice aligns with the PYD principle of confidence, as it encourages youths to reflect on their experiences, set goals, and develop a sense of responsibility for their own development.<\/p>\n

Collaborating with Stakeholders<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The third theme underscores the critical role of collaboration with stakeholders, including social workers, volunteers, and programme partners, such as staff members from Wildlife Reserves Singapore and chefs from the Food and Beverage industry, in supporting youth development. Facilitators stressed the need for ongoing communication with partners to ensure that programmes remained responsive to the youths’ evolving needs. When they identified youths with higher support needs, for example, they would increase the number of support staff assigned to that group. In situations where youths were only comfortable participating if their social worker was present, exceptions were made to involve the social workers in the programme for the youth to participate with someone whom they trust. As one facilitator (6) explained:<\/p>\n

Usually like after every zoo’s programme session, we will try to have a debrief and, in the beginning, we will also have a meeting like with them [the partners]… with our debrief, we’ll also discuss like if there’s any youth who’s maybe having any difficulties that we will discuss together, how can we support this youth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This collaborative approach ensures that programmes remain responsive and adaptive to the evolving needs of youths. Facilitators also stressed the importance of recognising and appreciating the contributions of all stakeholders, which helped maintain the stakeholders’ motivation and strengthen relationships. By fostering a collaborative and supportive environment, programmes were able to better address the diverse needs of at-risk youths.<\/p>\n

The impact of these collaborations extended to the youths themselves. Many found inspiration in the lived experiences and resilience shared by programme partners. Youth (7) reflected on the patience and support they received:<\/p>\n

I’m quite slow. That’s the whole reason why I had to drop out from my [previous] cooking class… I was really lucky to have [the programme partners] be very patient with me, and also like give me time to catch up with the rest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Others drew motivation from partners’ personal journeys. Youth (8) shared:<\/p>\n

[The programme partner’s] education wasn’t that good, but he took 20 years to reach to the position he’s in. So, I was like, that’s really cool and like I really admire him, respect. Like maybe I can do it too.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Similarly, youth (1) noted:<\/p>\n

[The programme partner] shared her experience in F&B. I could tell that she’s very passionate about her job. [I] felt motivated. Like she didn’t really give up.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By integrating family, school, and community efforts, this holistic approach embodies the PYD principle of connection, creating a supportive ecosystem that nurtures both immediate engagement and long-term development.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tConclusion\t<\/h4>\n\t

By focusing on building relationships, providing multidimensional support, and collaborating with stakeholders, facilitators created environments where youths could thrive. These practices aligned with the PYD principles of connection, competence, and confidence. They fostered emotional safety and engagement, and they empowered youths to develop critical skills and resilience. The study confirms existing research by Williford et al. (2023) and Montreuil et al. (2018), which emphasise the importance of safe, co-created spaces in youth development; and how experiential learning and relatable role models (Greene & Seefeldt, 2023) enhance youths’ participation and inspire them.<\/p>\n

However, this study found that youth involvement in co-creating was not yet fully realised as the process of creation was primarily driven by facilitators. Existing literature emphasises the importance of co-creation with youth, such as involving them in programme preparation, facilitation, and leadership opportunities (Wu et al., 2022). Moving forward, the facilitators aim to continue the efforts to expand spaces for youth voice and participation.<\/p>\n

The insights presented in this article were based on Fei Yue’s programmes. Its focus on one organisation constitutes a limitation. Future research could broaden the scope by including a wider array of interest-based youth programmes in Singapore. By doing so, practitioners and policymakers could gain diverse perspectives into PYD’s use and implementation in Singapore. This allows us to strengthen youth development efforts.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tEndnote\t<\/h4>\n\t[1] The dataset was obtained from:
\nGan, C., Yeo, V., Tay, D., & Liu, D. (2024, September). Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Interest-Based Programmes for Youth Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET): Reflections from the Zoo Career Exposure and Baking Programmes, Youth Outreach Conference 2024, Singapore.\n

\n\t\t\tAcknowledgements\t<\/h4>\n\t

We sincerely thank the researchers who collected and prepared the datasets for this study. Our gratitude goes to Ms. Jocelyn Tan Yah Ying for her work on the facilitator interviews (Dataset 1), and to Ms. Denise Liu Li Juan, Ms. Clarissa Gan Jin Ai and Ms. Vera Teo Sheng Yi for their efforts in gathering youth perspectives (Dataset 2). We also thank Ms. Zoe Tee Wan Ting for her contribution to the background of NEET youth work in Fei Yue and Ms. Helen Sim Keng Ling for her careful review and editing of the manuscript.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\tReferences\t<\/h4>\n\t

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma Jr., A. (2006). Positive Youth Development: Theory, research, and applications. In Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development, Vol. 1 <\/em>(6th ed., pp. 894-941). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.<\/p>\n

Burkhard, B. M., Robinson, K. M., Murray, E. D., & Lerner, R. M. (2020). Positive Youth Development: Theory and perspective. In S. Hupp & J. Jewell (Eds.), The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development<\/em> (1st ed., pp. 1-12). Wiley. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/9781119171492.wecad310<\/a><\/p>\n

Ciocanel, O., Power, K., Eriksen, A., & Gillings, K. (2017). Effectiveness of Positive Youth Development interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46<\/em>(3), 483-504. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10964-016-0555-6<\/a><\/p>\n

Greene, J., & Seefeldt, K. (2023). Learning from youth: Using positive outcomes to evaluate summer youth employment programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 38<\/em>(5), 876-910. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/07435584211043295<\/a><\/p>\n

Khiatani, S., Liu, D., Yeo, B. S. S., & Wong, J. C. M. (2023). Reaching hidden youth in Singapore through the Hidden Youth Intervention Program: A biopsychosocial approach integrating mental health and social work interventions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14<\/em>, 1133659. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fpsyt.2023.1133659<\/a><\/p>\n

Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2013). The positive development of youth: Comprehensive findings from the 4-H study of positive youth development<\/em>. Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Tufts University. Retrieved June 19, 2026 from https:\/\/4-h.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/26143548\/4-H-Study-of-Positive-Youth-Development-Full-Report.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

L\u0151rinc, M., Ryan, L., D’Angelo, A., & Kaye, N. (2020). De-individualising the ‘NEET problem’: An ecological systems analysis. European Educational Research Journal, 19<\/em>(5), 412-427. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1474904119880402<\/a><\/p>\n

Ministry of Manpower. (2026). Youths in the labour market 2025<\/em>. Ministry of Manpower. Retrieved June 19, 2026, from https:\/\/stats.mom.gov.sg\/iMAS_PdfLibrary\/mrsd-Youths-in-the-Labour-Market-2025.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Montreuil, M., M\u00e9nard, J.-F., & Carnevale, F. A. (2018). Where vulnerability can become a strength: A focused ethnography of a community program for youth exposed to violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 91<\/em>, 390-397. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.childyouth.2018.06.013<\/a><\/p>\n

Neoh, M. J. Y., Carollo, A., Lim, M., & Esposito, G. (2023) Hikikomori: A scientometric review of 20 Years of Research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20<\/em>(9), 5657. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/ijerph20095657<\/a><\/p>\n

Norasakkunkit, V., & Uchida, Y. (2011). Psychological consequences of postindustrial anomie on self and motivation among Japanese youth. Journal of Social Issues, 67<\/em>(4), 774-786. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1540-4560.2011.01727.x<\/a><\/p>\n

Shek, D., Dou, D., Zhu, X., & Chai, W. (2019). Positive youth development: Current perspectives. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 10<\/em>, 131-141. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2147\/AHMT.S179946<\/a><\/p>\n

Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting Positive Youth Development through school\u2010based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta\u2010analysis of follow\u2010up effects. Child Development, 88<\/em>(4), 1156-1171. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/cdev.12864<\/a><\/p>\n

Williford, A., Bytolas, J., Yoder, J., Duncan, D., Espelage, D. L., Woolweaver, A. B., Ortega, L., LoMurray, S., Robinson, L. E., Drescher, A., Plyler, V., Aguilar, T., Wright, A., Ishmeal, D., & Al Ghrary, R. (2023). Adult characteristics, skills, and approaches that facilitate supportive relationships with youth: A qualitative investigation of Sources of Strength. Children and Youth Services Review, 152<\/em>, 107051. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.childyouth.2023.107051<\/a><\/p>\n

Wong, M. (2020). Hidden youth? A new perspective on the sociality of young people ‘withdrawn’ in the bedroom in a digital age. New Media & Society, 22<\/em>(7), 1227-1244. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1461444820912530<\/a><\/p>\n

Wu, J. H.-C., Shereda, A., Stacy, S. T., Weiss, J. K., & Heintschel, M. (2022). Maximizing youth leadership in out-of-school time programs: Six best practices from youth driven spaces. Journal of Youth Development, 17<\/em>(3), 70-89. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5195\/jyd.2022.1179<\/a><\/p>\n\t

Edited by Dr Meixi and Mr Tan Zhi Han (National University of Singapore)<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SSR Snippet – June 2026 Issue 2 Good Practices in Positive Youth Development Programmes for Youths Not in Education, Employment or Training Cheang Sze Yan (Fei Yue Community Services) Keywords: Positive Youth Development (PYD), NEET youths (Not in Education, Employment or Training), youth-centred programmes, good practice Introduction Singapore’s competitive and meritocratic society places immense pressure […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":270,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"no-sidebar","site-content-layout":"page-builder","ast-site-content-layout":"full-width-container","site-content-style":"unboxed","site-sidebar-style":"unboxed","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"disabled","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"disabled","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-33799","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/270"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33799"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33799\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33823,"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/33799\/revisions\/33823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fass.nus.edu.sg\/ssr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}