Transition from Childcare Institutions to Adulthood for Youth: Through the Lens of Identity and Gender

A. Youth and Childcare Institutions

Young people grow in varied circumstances with difference in perspectives and priorities. The youth do not exist as a single variable, but the different experiences contribute in formation of different groups and subgroups of young people, thus making it even more essential to decode these experiences and understand youth as a social construct. Youth is a period when young people actively engage with various social institutions. The outcomes in the life of the youth are shaped by such engagements. These relations of power are inherent in the social divisions of society. Hence, the meaning and experience of becoming an adult is socially mediated.

As rightly put by Wyn and White, ‘The position and opportunities of young people in society are ultimately shaped by relations of wealth and poverty’ (Wyn & White, 1997, p. 1). Young people, like others, hold a position in society, which is usually compromised pertaining to the hierarchy of age groups. This position is highly influenced by the social and economic conditions of the youth. It is unlikely for a youth to gain access to necessities such as shelter, food and sanitation along with quality education and livelihood if they hold no power in the respective social order. The social, political and economic processes contribute in determining what consists of the adulthood, who becomes an adult and who does not. All the social, political and economic institutions are ‘adult-run’ enterprises that point out the peculiar power relationship between the young and the adult. It also highlights the absence of agency of a young person in their life decisions. So, ‘the social processes affect young people’s experiences which in turn cater to differentiating groups of young people from each other, sharpening and reinforcing deeper social divisions rather than breaking them down’ (Wyn & White, 1997, pp. 17–18).

According to the JJ Act, 2015, a child or youth can be sheltered in a CCI until the age of 18 years. As soon as they turn 18, legally adult, they have to exit the childcare system. This is primarily because of the understanding of legal arrival of the adulthood at the age of 18 years, making the government non-liable of young adults setting a foot in the ‘mainstream’. The transition from a CCI to the outside world is a crucial and difficult process. They leave as a child but enter the mainstream as young adults, which can be tricky enough with less or no guidance and support system. ‘The transition from adolescence to adulthood is considered a significant developmental stage in a young person’s growth, a time when special risks and opportunities exclusive to that period surface’ (Greeson, 2013). This transitional period becomes a vital period for the youth who are not merely prepared to drive this phase. Youth exiting the childcare system are on the edge of getting exploited as soon as they come out of those spaces. Vulnerable children and young adults exiting the childcare system are more likely to face adverse challenges due to scarcity of resources during this developmental period, which results in various negative adult outcomes later in life.

The JJ Act, 2015, states that ‘The Children in need of care and protection who are leaving institutional care or children in conflict with law leaving special homes or place of safety on attaining eighteen years of age, may be provided financial support to help them to re-integrate into the mainstream of the society’ (JJ Act, 2015, p. 22).

The youth leaving the childcare system ‘may’ be provided with the financial support for reintegration is a very conflicting statement. While the state’s efforts to acknowledge the young unprepared adults is essential, it is vague and unbinding in nature. In addition, there is an assumption underlying in this statement that financial support shall be enough for the youth to resettle into the mainstream of society. Is it really enough for a state to provide possibility of financial support for the institutionalised youth? Do we not need to revisit these provisions and ponder on the other possible needs of marginalised and institutionalised young people?

B. Youth Identity

In the 1950s, based on Erik Erikson’s work, the concept of ‘identity’ became an interdisciplinary term, describing the effects of social change on social status, group allegiances, resources acquisition and the process of developing a sense of meaning and purpose to life. ‘Identities are always in process, and identity formation is never complete’ (Côté, 2009, p. 381).

Identity formation is a social process that is in continuum throughout the life. However, it is the central idea of youth being a developmental stage that results in assumption of Identity formation as an essential aspect of being a young person in the society. ‘The transition period is also referred to as ‘emerging adulthood’ and is considered a distinct period demographically, subjectively, and in terms of identity explorations’ (Greeson, 2013).

Formation of an identity is based on choices young people make in their lives. When it comes to institutionalised youth, there is high scarcity of resources that affects their agency. The relationship between resources and choices is intertwined and interdependent. The availability of resources and space to a child during their formative years is essential to their growth and development. It was highlighted by the youth that the physical conditions of CCIs are quite bare minimum with respect to infrastructure and resources. This results in poor living conditions and lack of choices for a child and youth to exercise their freedom and agency in life decisions.

The youth enters the child protection and care system because of two major factors: first, financial challenges at home and, second, absence of biological parents or any caregiver. This suggests that the children entering the care and protection system are already vulnerable and most likely to have faced adverse challenges. As Côté (2009) said, ‘It must be acknowledged that the individualisation process and social identities continue to be circumscribed by class, gender and race’. Identities are highly shaped by social institutions that the youth engage with throughout their lives. Like any other social institution, the CCIs affect the youth’s ideologies and perception of the world. It was evident, in the discussions with the youth, that the CCIs are inscribing exclusion, fear, limitations, subservience and obliviousness in the youth. There is a firm restriction on the mobility of youth both inside and outside the CCIs. This results in disconnection from the outside world, except the times when they either go to schools or during donors’ visitations. The children and youth are always expected to be grateful and indebted towards the donors. If anyone falls out of the line with the gratitude, they are then redirected to the CCI authorities for unruly behaviour. The school is the second window to the outside world for institutionalised youth, and it was found that even the school as a social institution acts on exclusion and prejudice. The youth shared that they were excluded from the regular school activities such as prayers, classes, camps and excursions. The engagement of teachers and other students is also limited with the children and youth coming from CCIs. It was clear that not many of the youth appreciated their school experience. There was also a unanimous regret of not being able to take up science as a stream in high school, given the low grades. This is because of the poor base for science stream, as it requires a lot of time, dedication and resources to make a career in medical or engineering, as shared by the youth. As Vimal and Shah (2013) would describe it, ‘Many factors other than the ability of the student influence his educational experiences and attainments…differential access to educational facilities according to his social class status, differences in motivations…potential’. The systematic exclusion of marginalised young people is evident when one looks at the social institutions closely.

The institutionalised youth tend to conceal their identities when they exit the care and protection system. During the discussion on the process of exiting from the system, it was found that institutionalised youth are most likely to not share their particulars of CCIs with newly found friends and college-mates. It was also shared by the youth that they face exclusion based on skills (such as computers, IT, media, social media) and knowledge, which they usually lack in as compared to their ‘other’ university friends. It is also evident that the youth exiting the care and protection system, who lack of support and guidance, tend to face difficulties in performing regular tasks. For example, crossing a busy street, daily commute, bank jobs, reaching out for help in times of confusion, filling out forms or writing applications, poor language and communications skills, etc.

There is a ‘Significant association between caregivers’ aspirations related to the future education and occupation of children at age 12, and their children’s educational status at age 19. It is important to point out that in the logistic regression, children whose caregiver aspired to see them become skilled workers as well as those whose caregiver aspired to see them complete secondary education and above, are more likely to continue education by age 19’ (Singh et al., 2018).

Poor relationship with teachers and caretakers in CCIs leads to internalising of fear of authority and power. As shared by multiple young people during discussions, the ‘warden’ or the caretaker has the least empathy or tenderness towards the youth resulting in harsh instances of engagement with each other. If the caretakers or a guardian figure in the lives of children and youth downgrades and demotivates them, there are high chances of low confidence, self-doubts, and they are highly critical and negative about both the present and the future.

Young people tend to experience these processes of exclusion and marginalisation in very personal and immediate ways. Such negative experiences result in poor adult outcomes, resulting in young people forced to exist on the margins of society, barely sustaining themselves. As Wyn and White (1997) said, ‘Negative experiences are linked to economic, social and political marginalisation, which in turn directly affect how young people engage in and with time, space, activity, resources and identity formation’. If a young person conceals their identity in order to fit into the society that rejected their very existence, this might result in catastrophic permanent damage to their identities. This highlights the shame and stigma strongly internalised by the youth who, in turn, try to alter their realities.

B. Gender and Youth

It becomes essential to understand development and transitional process through the lens of gender because of the very nature of our society. The social institutions not just affect our ideologies in general, but also on how differently we look at different genders. The stages of development and transition are very individualised and autonomous in nature, making it an exclusive process, exclusive of women. ‘The idea of linear development towards the fully autonomous, independent individual can only be seen to ‘fit’ women’s experiences of growing up if many aspects of women’s experiences are ignored’ (Wyn & White, 1997, p. 58).

While Young girls entered the childcare and protection system because of several adverse conditions, just like young boys, there was a strong distinction that emerged from the study. The young girls enter the system in order to relocate themselves somewhere safer with social security on account of losing their father. Young girls who have lost their fathers were more prone to societal ills, judgements and pressure. This phenomenon throws light on the various kinds of insecurities and vulnerabilities a girl carries along while entering the childcare system, which gets multiplied in the CCIs.

The systematic exclusion of marginalised young women is evident when one examines the social institutions closely. Recently, a CCI for female youth changed their policy of letting girls stay till they complete their schooling. The new rule prescribed by the private CCI leaves young girls with no choice but to leave the system right after they complete their 10th grade. Pertaining to such new rules and policies, young girls succumb to the systemic failures and have to drop out of the education system. This results in increased dropout rates of girls from school. What happens to these young girls? They are either married off by their relatives, forced into low-wage labour market or even worse, become a victim of trafficking. ‘The experiences of early school-leavers reveal how the formal transition process of education actively marginalises young people from low socio-economic backgrounds’ (Wyn & White, 1997, p. 106).

As discussed earlier, the resources available to the young people in CCIs matter a lot for their adequate development of self and agency. Another distinction that emerged from the study is the difference in the physical and geographical structures of institutions, both run by the same organisation, for girls and boys. While the CCI for boys existed in a geographically accessible space, the CCI for girls was located in a miniscule and closed space. While the CCI for boys was spacious and had more resources like a library and lawns, the one for girls barely had enough space for all the girls to live together.

In the discussions with the female youth, a very complicated aspect emerged, pointing out at gendered notions of a CCI. It was widely shared by the female youth that they have a prescribed set of household chores in the name of duties, which they were supposed to adhere to strictly. From cleaning, dishwashing, preparing food to looking after younger girls were some of the duties that were divided among all the female youth. On the other hand, male youth had a cook, cleaner and sweeper to take care of them. Moreover, they were served hot meal with a ringing of a bell. In male shelter homes, the youth were punished in the form of cleaning and washing which, in contrast, were duties of female youth. Therefore, someone’s punishment was someone else’s obedience. This is a strong example of how the patriarchy works and how gender norms are reinforced through the CCIs. It is quite clear that the CCIs, like any other social institution, prepare their female youth for their ‘natural’ role of domestic caretaker and males to be the bread-earners of the family. However, is there anything natural about the sexual division of labour? ‘There is nothing natural about sexual division of labour…extends even to public arena of paid work and again, has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with gender’ (Menon, 2012, p. 11).

The assumption that women’s primary role and responsibility is of a caretaker and motherhood has a concealed idea of women as ‘second-class’ citizens.

As Menon would describe it, ‘The sexual division of labour has serious implications for the role of women as citizens, because every woman’s horizons are limited by this supposedly “primary” responsibility, whether in their choice of career, or their ability to participate in politics (trade unions, elections), women learn when very young, to limit their ambitions’ (Menon, 2012, p. 13).

The institutionalised female youth long for freedom and autonomy while they are in the childcare system, whereas the male youth was found to be more sceptical and worried of stepping outside as the CCIs had become their safe space for when they step out, they have to learn and perform all the tasks that the female youth perform. Therefore, duties performed by the female youth become a reality for the male youth when they exit the childcare system.

A young woman exiting the childcare system would not be as confident as her male counterpart. The conditioning of both the sexes through strict gender roles, inflicting learnt patriarchy, makes it even more difficult for the youth to achieve the status of equality in the society.