Feasibility Study Report For Youth Initiative

Feasibility Study Report for Youth Initiative
Prepared for Kāpiti Coast District Council

August 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.............................................................................................i
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................1
2 Purpose of the Feasibility Study.................................................................2
3 Methodology .................................................................................................4
4 Current Provisions for Young People.........................................................7
5 Youth Work and Youth Development .......................................................13
6 Key Considerations for Option Selection.................................................16
7 What young people want ...........................................................................19
8 Options for a Youth Initiative ....................................................................20
8.1 Option 1: Clubs Based ...............................................................................21
8.2 Option 2: Mobile Service............................................................................25
8.3 Option 3: Outward Focused Centre ..........................................................31
9 A Comparative Overview of Three Options..............................................40
10 Conclusion and Recommendations .........................................................43
11 Bibliography ...............................................................................................45
Appendix 1 - Terms of reference and membership of the Advisory Group .48
Appendix 2 - Feasibility study brief.................................................................52
Appendix 3 - A profile of young people in Kāpiti ...........................................56
Appendix 4 - List of interviews ........................................................................76
Appendix 5 - Summary of findings from the social and recreational

organisation survey..........................................................................................78
Appendix 6 - Youth work and youth development.........................................85
Appendix 7 - Summary of findings from the youth survey ...........................87
Appendix 8 - Summary of findings from focus groups .................................99

Executive Summary
The Kāpiti Coast District Council, in partnership with the Kāpiti Coast Youth Council,
identified the need for a youth centre in the south of District (from Waikanae to
Paekākāriki). In the 2012 Long Term Plan, the Council resolved to bring forward the
development of youth centre from 2022/23 to 2014/15 (year 3).
An advisory group was established by the Council to investigate the feasibility of the
initiative. This group recommended the scope of the study be broadened to allow
exploration of a wider range of models, including a youth centre, which could meet the
purpose of the initiative. The feasibility study examines a range of options including a
youth centre option that meet the purpose of the initiative.
The purpose of the initiative is to provide open access space/s where young people
have the opportunity to:
 gather and be themselves in place/s which they feel ownership over;

 participate in unstructured and structured social, recreation and educational
activities which contribute to their development; and
 access the support of youth workers in their lives.
These three elements are reflected visually in the document as:
The youth initiative is underpinned with a youth development approach to be delivered

by youth workers. This helps to transform a social and recreational opportunity into
something which better supports young people’s social and personal development.
The key components of the feasibility study are:
 a profile of young people in the designated area 1 ;

 a profile of current provision of social and recreational services for young people
developed through surveys, interviews and focus groups with clubs, groups and
individuals including young people;
 analysis of gaps, barriers and opportunities in relation to social and recreational
opportunities;
 an examination of models of good practice in youth work, youth development and
youth centres including an international/national literature review;
1
The designated area are those communities in the south of the District; from Paekākāriki to Waikanae.
Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative i

 community and youth consultation on activities, ideas and options through
surveys, interviews and focus groups with organisations and individuals including
young people; and
 findings, considerations and recommendations.
For communities south of the District, about 14% of all residents are young people aged
12 to 24 years. The largest proportion of young people in the south of the District is aged
12 to 17 years (62%). 18% of young people in the Kāpiti District reside in Paraparaumu
central. The percentage of young people living in the District in the future is forecast to
be of a similar proportion.
Around 150 social and recreation organisations service the south of the District,
including clubs and faith-based groups. One hundred and twenty eight of these
organisations participated in a survey for this study. Approximately 40% of these have
programmes which include membership of young people between the ages of 13 to 21.
Sports are the main activity available and engaged in by young people. The study
suggests young people would be involved in more activities if their wider interests were
catered to, and if free and low cost activities were available. The study determined that a
youth initiative would not duplicate any existing services or organisations. Instead it
could draw on existing resources and knowledge.
The study identified young people’s need for a space or spaces they can ‘call their own’,
where they do not need to spend money and they can ‘do their own thing’. While many
young people are involved in organised and structured activities (around one third of
young people surveyed), they also indicated they need places to be where they can
initiate and lead their own activities, as well as ‘just hang’. International research has
identified spaces where young people can ‘hang out’, socialise and feel a sense of
belonging to as being critical to youth development.
The youth initiative is underpinned with a youth development approach delivered by

youth workers. This helps to transform a social and recreational opportunity into
something which better supports young people’s social and personal development. In
particular, the voluntary engagement of young people has a major influence on the way
youth work is carried out for any chosen option. The study provides a set of
recommendations for effective youth work within a youth development approach
including: involving young people as co-creators, not as service receivers and employing
qualified youth workers.
Drawing on existing international and national models as well as local consultation, three
options were developed and assessed:
 Option 1 – Clubs-based would provide programming through existing

organisations. No youth worker is assigned, instead youth work training would be
provided. A coordination role would be required. Funding would be directed to
supporting existing organisations and their engagement with young people. This
option was developed as a result of interest from some stakeholders for a model
which provided better access for young people into existing club activities with
support.
 Option 2 - Mobile service is the provision of a mobile service which could have
a physically mobile space attached (i.e. bus). It involves ‘detached’ youth workers
Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative ii

engaging with young people through activities and events in the community. It
would draw on existing organisations and their spaces (as in Option 1) and
activities would also take place in public spaces.
 Option 3 - Outward focused centre is based on a modified youth centre model.

Youth workers would provide programming in a central youth space and other
community spaces. There is opportunity for events and activities to be held
beyond the physical space in partnership with existing organisations as well as
inviting the community ‘inwards’ to provide services to young people in the
central space.
The options were assessed against a range of criteria including:

a) potential for youth ownership; space/s where young people can gather and
be themselves where they feel a sense of ownership;
b) ability to provide unstructured and structured activities which contribute to
young people’s development;
c) ability to provide good youth worker support under a youth development
approach;
d) ability to be community connected;
e) being open to all young people aged 13 – 21 from Paekākāriki to Waikanae;
f) being easily accessible in terms of physical accessibility, affordability and
youth friendly for a diverse range of youth cultures;
g) being cost effective and sustainable;
h) being culturally inclusive and reflect the Council’s Treaty of Waitangi
obligations; and
i) not duplicating existing services for young people.
As a result of this assessment, Option 3 best meets the youth initiative criteria. It does
not replicate existing activities or services in the community, but draws on involving
community groups and organisations within a central facility and through taking activities
and events out into the community. This option best provides youth workers and young
people with the opportunity to develop relationships with each other and the wider
community. It also provides a central safe location where young people can access
resources and youth workers on a regular basis. Option 3 was also the model most
preferred by young people in focus groups.
On comparison of strengths, limitations, meeting the youth initiative criteria, youth

development findings and young people’s views of the three options, it is recommended
the Council establishes a single physical space, stand-alone centre and engages with
young people in the development of this space. Crucial to its success is that the model is
outward focused, engaging with existing groups and the wider community.
Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative iii

1 Introduction
Choosing Futures: the community's vision for the Kāpiti Coast District describes the
seven outcome areas the community has developed. These include two outcomes
pertinent to youth people:
 Community Outcome Six - the District is a place that works for young people and
 Community Outcome Seven - the District has a strong, healthy, safe and involved
community.
The Kāpiti Coast District Council recognised the need for youth space, by including $1
million capital budget in the 2009 Community Plan for the development of a youth hub in
2022/23.
In 2011-12, the Kāpiti Coast District Council and the Kāpiti Coast Youth Council
investigated the need for youth friendly spaces in the District in conjunction with youth
development opportunities. The need for these was identified in the 2010 Kāpiti Coast
Youth Survey. The Youth Council also undertook initial research on what a youth centre
is and what it can do. They used the Council’s Long Term Plan consultation process to
raise awareness in the community of youth needs, promote the youth centre concept
and foster community support.
Through the 2012 Long Term Plan deliberations, the Council decided to bring forward
the development of a youth centre to 2014/15. The 2012 Long Term Plan provides for
$650,000 capital funding in 2014/15 and operational funding to cover the cost of capital
and operating costs for the out years.
An Advisory Group made up of Council and community members was established in

September 2012 to provide advice to the Council on the findings and recommendations
of the study. Details of the membership of this group and the terms of reference can be
found in Appendix 1. This group recommended widening the scope of the project to
allow for consideration of other options than a single space youth centre. As a result, the
purpose of the initiative and the feasibility study brief were broadened. The feasibility
study brief is found in Appendix 2.
Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 1

2 Purpose of the Feasibility Study
The aim of the feasibility study is to investigate options, including a single space youth
centre which could meet the purpose of the initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to
provide open access space or spaces where young people in the south of the District
have the opportunity to:

 participate in free unstructured and structured social, recreation and educational
activities which contribute to their development;
These three elements are reflected visually in the document as:
The feasibility study examines three options that could meet the purpose of the initiative
as outlined above. It compares a single location youth centre option with other options; it
makes recommendation on a preferred option after assessing the options against the
following criteria:
be themselves where they feel a sense of ownership ;
approach;
obligations; and

Structure of the Report
The feasibility study first sets the picture of the current provision of structured activities
provided in the designated area and findings related to young people’s social and
recreational needs. Key points to consider in developing a youth initiative underpinned
by a youth development approach and youth work is provided and recommendations are
made. The literature review, online search, interviews with staff and users of youth
centres around New Zealand and local stakeholders are embedded throughout the body
of the report to provide context, further information and discussion of particular areas.
Young people’s thoughts and opinions on a preferred option are provided and analysis
of each option contains a section on the response from the focus groups. The options
are outlined and then discussed in terms of how each meets the youth initiative criteria.
Recommendations are provided at the end of the report. Appendices provide further
information, particularly on the methodology, research participants and data.

3 Methodology
Investigation into the types of models and issues related to a youth initiative drew on
international, national and local information. The study addressed the following:
 What are the social, recreational and broad educational opportunities,

programmes, services and initiatives in the District for young people? How can
this initiative strengthen these? What are the gaps and barriers? What are the
opportunities?
 What can we learn from other communities and from overseas about youth
centres and youth projects which meet the purpose of our initiative?
 What are the most effective options for our community? How do the options meet
the criteria of the initiative? What is the best option for our community? How
does a single location youth centre compare with other options? Is a single
location youth centre feasible for the designated area (Paekākāriki – Waikanae)?
Key components of the study were:
 a profile of young people in the designated area;

 a profile of current provision of social and recreational services for young people
developed through surveys, interviews and focus groups with clubs, groups and
individuals including young people;
 analysis of gaps, barriers and opportunities in relation to social and recreational
opportunities;
 an examination of models of good practice in youth work, youth development and
youth centres including an international/national literature review; and
 community and youth consultation on activities, ideas and options through
surveys, interviews and focus groups with organisations and individuals including
young people.
An extensive literature search drew on articles and online information discussing youth
centres, spaces and models, urban space design, young people and belonging, and
youth engagement and participation in activities.
A local youth profile was developed which uses statistical information, both national and
local, to build a picture of young people on the Kāpiti Coast (Appendix 3). Information
captured in the 2010 Kāpiti Coast Youth Survey 2 was also used to build the profile.
The profile presents the geographic, demographic, social and economic characteristics
of the communities that will be serviced by the youth initiative. It also informed the
questions of the surveys, interviews and focus groups and provided a broad context for
this study.
2
Kāpiti Coast Youth Survey 2012, Kāpiti Coast District Council

Extensive local consultation was undertaken. This included:
 interviews with 26 people/organisations working with young people;

 survey of 154 social and recreational organisations;
 survey of 1,447 young people; and
 12 youth focus groups.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with managers and employers of a variety of

youth centres and youth development organisations/programmes, predominantly in the
Wellington region. Interviews with key stakeholders in the local community and leaders
of church-based youth groups were also undertaken. A list of local stakeholder
interviewees and youth centre/youth development organisations interviewed is provided
in Appendix 4.
A survey of social and recreational organisations servicing the south of the District (the
‘clubs’ survey) was conducted to establish a stocktake of organisations, their activities,
facilities, membership costs and participation by young people aged 13 to 21. This group
included organisations such as sports clubs, dance studios and church youth groups.
Responses were mainly collected via an online survey tool (Survey Monkey), while some
responses were collected over the phone and face-to-face, and then input into Survey
Monkey. A summary of the results is at Appendix 5.
A survey of young people aged 13-21 years in the south of the District was conducted to
develop an understanding of:
 what activities young people are involved with;

 where and how they spend their time;
 barriers to participation in activities; and
 what they would like to see in their community in relation to their interests and
hobbies.
A summary of the youth survey results is at Appendix 7. The survey was distributed to
young people at Kāpiti College, Paraparaumu College, training institutes, polytechnic
and tertiary institutes and to young people both in and out of work. The majority of
respondents were from the two colleges (n=1227). This is reflective of the demographics
of young people who reside in the south of the District. Smaller groups of young people
in polytechnic, university and in training (n=109), those working (n=54) and young
people who doing ‘something else’ (n=42) participated in the survey. The respondents
either completed the survey online or filled out a paper version of the survey. The survey
is likely to have captured young people who are literate and interested in sharing their
views and opinions. Young people with literacy challenges and see little value in
responding to surveys are unlikely to be captured in this survey.
As a quantitative research tool, a survey does not always provide explanations or

context for particular responses. Therefore, twelve focus groups were conducted with a
diverse range of local young people. A summary of focus group findings is at Appendix
8. These provided a rich description and understanding about why particular responses
were given and what they mean for young people. The process of discussion helped
identify key issues and concerns in relation to the topic. While there are benefits to group
discussions with young people, there are some limitations. In some instances a ‘leader’
in a group may influence the views of others and/or participants may say what they

believe others (including the facilitator) expect them to talk about, rather than their own
opinion. The facilitator aimed to ensure these issues were addressed. Focus group
participants were provided with a meal and a small gift in recognition of their time. All
interviews and focus groups were conducted in accordance to clear ethical guidelines,
outlining the participants’ rights in relation to the interviews, transcripts and information.
While information was collected on ethnicity from both surveys, there was no significant
data provided to conduct analysis on separate ethnic groups. Just over 200 young
people who responded to the youth survey indicated their ethnicity as ‘Māori’. There was
little difference in the responses from Māori to other groups. Two focus groups were held
exclusively with rangatahi from local iwi.

4 Current Provisions for Young People
This section looks at the current provision of social and recreational opportunities
available for young people through organisations. It provides some key information to
assist with recognising any potential implications to be considered for the proposed
youth initiative. It identifies current structured activities and interests/hobbies young
people are involved in by examining the key findings from two surveys undertaken:
 the clubs survey undertaken with 128 recreational and social organisations 3 ; and
 the survey of 1,447 young people aged 14 – 22 years who lived or attended
College in the south of the District (excluding Ōtaki ward).
Information from focus groups held is also used to inform this section.
Young people’s involvement in structured and non structured activity
Overall most young people were involved in organised activity – 61% (n=872) compared
with 38% (n=543) who weren’t. Young people were most likely to participate in sport
than any other structured recreational activity. Forty percent of young people surveyed
(n=570) stated they were involved in outdoor sports and 19% (n=278) participated in
indoor activities. Arts/music and church youth group activities were popular, particularly
among college aged young people. It is noted that other non-sporting and recreational
organisations involved with young people provide limited social and recreational
activities.
In the survey, young people were asked to name three hobbies/interests they
participated in. The following activities are the most popular:
 gaming and computing (379 young people, 26% of survey participants);

 socialising, youth group, social media and hanging out with friends (287 young
people, 20% of survey participants); and
 performing arts (237 young people, 17% of survey participants).
This section identifies implications and considerations relating to the survey findings and
the proposed youth initiative:
 As Church Youth Group activities are popular among young people, faith-based
youth group leaders and youth pastors were interviewed to gather information on
current activity and future plans for youth groups in the area. There was support from
them for the youth initiative and interest in a youth centre model.
3
Organisations were separated into two groups: those with more than 30% participation of young people (aged 13 to 21)
and those who had less than 30% participation by young people. There are 51 organisations that indicated they had more
than 30% participation of young people in the original survey. However, a follow up question to these organisations asking
for the total number of members an organisation had and the number of young people involved, revealed that of the
twenty-seven that responded, 14 actually had less than 30% young people participating; therefore, the numbers based on
the original survey, may actually be less.

 There is no duplication foreseen with church youth groups. Half of those interviewed
stated they would benefit from having a free and accessible space available to their
group for events or weekly use.
 The youth initiative would not be duplicating activities provided by

organisations/clubs, instead, there is the opportunity to engage with and draw on
their expertise.
 Youth services providers in the south of the District, including those providing health,
social services and targeted youth services were interviewed. There is no duplication
foreseen with these services as they provide limited provision of social or
recreational activities, as this is beyond their scope of their work.
 Addressing barriers identified in the survey such as cost, and appropriate activities
that covered hobbies and interest not already catered for, would potentially enhance
access and interest of young people.
Time and timing: young people’s and organisation’s schedules

Analysis of the survey data suggests that young people already involved in structured
activities are most likely to be engaged and busy. These young people may be engaged
in competition or advanced levels of their activity, requiring more time commitment.
Young people, particularly those aged 15 and over indicated having enough time was a
barrier when committing to a club or organisation. Reasons for this may include
increased study commitments or added responsibilities of part time employment, leaving
less spare time for recreation and structured activity.
Information from the survey showed that:
 The majority of clubs and associations only run activities during the school term,
not during the holidays.
 Some clubs, associations and organisations indicated that they would like more
young people engaged in their activity.
 The timing of activities offered will impact involvement by young people. There may
be a need for extended programmes to be run during the school holiday through a
youth initiative.

Opportunities for partnerships and the use of facilities
Of the 128 clubs, associations and organisations surveyed:
 only 16 (or 12.5%) owned their facility where activities took place;
 eight of these organisations used their facility at least 80% or more of the time;
and
 the other half indicated their facility was used less than 50% of the time.
Overall, organisations surveyed indicated they would consider using a dedicated youth
space for their activities. However, most clubs that took part in the survey indicated they
do not have the space available to host a youth initiative. Further investigation would be
needed to better understand this issue.
Feedback from focus groups suggests that young people would not feel comfortable in
facilities that catered for a specific type of activity as it also attracts a specific type of
young person. For example, the skate park is specifically designed for skateboarders
and excludes other young people who do not fit within that peer group.
Approximately one third of young people who participated in the youth survey indicated
they would access a youth friendly free space if it was available, another third indicated
‘maybe’ and the remainder said they would not do so.
 Consideration would be needed to ensure spaces where youth initiative activities are
taking place are those that young people felt comfortable in and have a sense of
ownership over.

Finding out about activities
A question in the survey asked ‘If you wanted to try a new activity or group, how would
you find out if it was available in your area?’.
Generally, young people learnt about activities both by searching for them (online) and
receiving information passively (from friends and school notices) – Figure 2. In fact most
young people went to their peers to seek out information about a new activity – 63%
asked a friend, 50% used Google, 40% used Facebook.
How do young people find out about a new activity
1000
900
800
700
UPT
number
600
500 Work
400 College
300
200
100
0 rd
es
ok
g
it
er
ok
ts
s
r
he
in
nd
ea
e
ul
ap
tic
bo
bo
gl
th
ot
Ad
ie
Ih
no
sp
oo
no
ce
e
Fr
on
ew
il
G
Fa
ge
o
nt
Ph
D
N
tu
le
ol
ai
C
w
source
Figure 2
The results from the survey show that many young people do not actively seek
information about a group or activity they are interested in, but become aware of this
through receiving information through school notices or hearing about it some other way.
About 40% of respondents of the survey attending college said they would wait until they
heard about an activity from peers or learnt of it through school notices. 40% of young
people outside of college indicated they would seek information from the newspaper.
 Online communication is key when engaging with young people. More traditional
methods such as newspapers are also important and especially to connect with
young people not in college.
 Any youth initiative will require a strong communication strategy, ensuring both a
web presence, and communicating information through a variety of avenues,
particularly as many young people rely on their friends for information.
 The selected model will need to be easily accessible (in terms of venues/location and
transport) to many young people.

Barriers to participation in organised activity
As noted previously 38% (n=543) did not participate in organised activity. For those that
did, 82% (n=872) said that there were barriers preventing them from being involved in
more activities.
The main reasons given are outlined in the following table.
Top responses for non-participation: Top responses for no further participation:

Reason Number % Reason Number %
There aren’t any clubs for 201 37% I don’t have enough time 400 46%
their hobbies and interests
I don’t have enough time 188 35% There aren’t any clubs for their 223 25%
hobbies and interests
It’s not my scene 132 27% I have other responsibilities 199 22%
Costs too much 111 20% Costs too much 195 22%
Cost is one of the key factors young people cited as prohibiting them from engaging in
(more or) any structured activities. Membership costs and costs associated with activities
ranged from $10 to $350 per term, the average was about $60 per school term.
Approximately 25% of organisations indicated associated costs were up to $100, while a

further 25% said they were more than $200. Of the organisations that had 30% or more
young people involved in their activities, 56% noted they had some financial provision to
assist young people in meeting costs.
95% of organisations/clubs surveyed noted their participants were dropped off by

parents 4 . The involvement of family members, both siblings (79%) and parents (71%)
was seen by organisations as a key reason for young people’s participation.
Approximately 67% of organisations indicated young people began the activity as a
young child, further suggesting commitment by parents from an early age.
It is noted that parental support (as adult participants of a club, volunteers, transport and
financial supporters) is very important in securing young people’s participation in
organised activities.
Over 70% of organisations/clubs surveyed suggested a ‘change in life circumstances’

was the main reason young people discontinue an activity with them. Around 60% of
organisations thought it was because young people ‘decided it wasn’t for them’ and a
similar number indicated it was because young people move.
4
Other methods that young people used to get to activities, according to the organisations surveyed, was by walking
(51%) or by bike/driving themselves (44%). Focus groups with young people highlighted that walking and biking are the
main ways young people got around the area.

 Free or cheap activities will be attractive to young people who have little personal
income and are reliant on parent’s financial support.
 Youth workers employed under the youth initiative could help young people
manage change of life circumstances to help them stay engaged or get engaged
in activities.
 Not all young people have parents who are able to support them to participate in
activities (this may relate to cost and/or transport). Parental support for the youth
initiative needs to be considered and explored.
Recommendations from Section 4
Drawing on the findings from this section of the feasibility study, it is recommended
that the youth initiative:
 engage with and draw on the expertise of existing organisations to ensure its
activities do not duplicate existing services;
 seeks opportunities for partnerships with clubs and other community
organisations;
 provides free and low cost programming to overcome the financial barriers many
young people face;
 provides structured and unstructured activities that cover young people’s hobbies
and interests not already catered for;
 investigates extended programming opportunities over secondary school holiday
periods;
 ensures timing of programmes meets the needs of young people;
 has a strong communication strategy;
 seeks to engage parents; and
 seeks to address transport issues for young people.

5 Youth Work and Youth Development
A Youth Development Approach
Ensuring a foundation firmly grounded in best practice youth development is essential to

the development of the initiative. Positive youth development has been described as “a
framework that guides communities in the way they organise services, opportunities and
supports so that young people can develop to their full potential” (Hamilton, Hamilton &
Pittman 2004).
Interviews with youth workers and managers in New Zealand as well as national and
international literature provided a rich basis of information for this section and
recommendations relating to youth work and youth development. For the youth initiative
to be based in a youth development approach, it needs to ensure:
 opportunities are provided for young people to experiment in a safe environment

and to develop positive social values;
 activities promote young people’s self-understanding, self-worth, and a sense of

belonging and resiliency;
 programmes involve young people as partners rather than clients
 programmes and activities engage with families, schools and communities; and
 that it is responsive to the needs of young Māori and opportunities to reconnect

young Māori with their whakapapa links are sought.
Professional Youth Work
“Youth work is the development of a relationship between a youth worker and a young
person through connecting with young people where young people are empowered,
including the choice to engage for as long as agreed and that supports their holistic,
positive development as rangatahi that contribute to themselves, their whanau,
community and world”.
(Code of Ethics for Youth Work in Aotearoa New Zealand 2011)
While there is a well recognised Code of Ethics for youth work in New Zealand,
there is no established professional body. The youth centres and youth
development programmes investigated ranged from those which employed
qualified youth workers to those in which youth work was not well defined and
staff were not youth work trained or experienced.
Voluntary nature of youth engagement
The voluntary engagement of young people has a major influence on the way youth
work is carried out and is an important aspect to consider. It contributes to the following
challenges for youth workers, whether centre-based or detached:

 creating attractive environment/s to which young people want to come and
programmes they choose to participate in;
 having a team of paid and unpaid staff so they can provide range of activities that
are fun and through which young people can learn and achieve; and
 ensuring the relationship between youth workers and young people and among
young people themselves is open, trusting, supportive and mutually respectful.
Centre-based work
In New Zealand and other western countries, youth work is most commonly offered
through open access youth centres. However it is important to recognise that not all
youth centres are youth development focused. There was a wide range of diversity
amongst the range of facilities called ‘youth centres’ or ‘youth spaces’ in which interviews
were held. These ranged from:
 those facilities focused on recreational outcomes where staff focus on provided

fun activities to keep young people occupied inside the facility (recreation and
inward focused); to
 those facilities focused on youth development outcomes which use magnet

activities to engage young people in the facility and out in the community for
youth development purposes (youth development and outward focused).
Detached youth work
Detached youth work involves going to where young people gather, and takes place in
localities such as schools and on the street. The detached youth work model was widely
used in New Zealand in 1980s. Some of the key concerns about the detached youth
worker scheme are still relevant today. These include:
 a lack of clarity about what detached youth work involves for worker and agency;
 poor support for detached youth workers when working in isolation;
 challenges for young people seeking out a youth worker (rather than being found
somewhere by a youth worker); and
 the ad hoc nature of detached youth work (Department of Internal Affairs 1984).
Detached youth workers must create a routine and persona that allows young people to
find and approach them. Most commonly, programmes are implemented to draw young
people into contact with the worker and quality of the programme determines how long
contact is sustained. The main place detached youth work is found in New Zealand is in
secondary schools where youth workers can readily connect with young people and
have a base from which to work. One of the challenges facing detached youth workers is
a lack of a physical space which can act as a sanctuary for young people who do not
engage through programming.
Further information about youth development and youth work is in Appendix 6.

Recommendations from Section 5
It is recommended that any model developed under the youth initiative:
 is outward focused, engaging with communities, iwi and organisations which

young people access;
 works from a youth development approach not purely as a recreational asset;
 provides pathways for young people to develop in a range of activities and roles;
 involves young people as co-creators, not consumers or service receivers;
 provides some ‘hang out’ space/time as well as unstructured and structured
activities;
 includes a mix of short, medium (regular) and long term programming; and
 programmes are constantly evaluated and adapted.
It is recommended that youth workers employed under the youth initiative:
 are qualified in youth work or a similar field;

 are supported with professional development pathways ;
 have regular supervision; and
 work within the parameters of the Code of Ethics for Youth Workers.
It is recommended that any detached youth work model has:
 an associated place/s which is accessible to young people where the youth

worker is available on a regular basis;
 an organisation which has a strong understanding of youth work to provide
managerial support; and
 more than one youth worker.

6 Key Considerations for Option Selection
The section provides key points for consideration in the development of the youth
initiative. It draws on findings from literature, other research, focus groups and
interviews.
The youth initiative provides opportunities for engagement with the wider
community
This includes collaborating with existing groups young people currently engage with
such as church youth groups, recreational organisations and youth services. Interviews
with youth development organisations and youth centres show that outward focused
projects which actively engage with their community are more likely to succeed and have
greater youth development outcomes. Local stakeholders were supportive of the
development of a youth initiative. The majority of local social and recreational
organisations surveyed were interested in engaging with the proposed youth initiative.
Engagement with the community will:
 encourage participation and buy in from key stakeholders (including

organisations, parents and young people);
 ensure the initiative has positive benefits for other community organisations and
services; and
 help optimise community support for the initiative including potential sponsorship
and volunteer help.
A New Zealand report on youth work (Martin 2006) noted as one of the key findings that
schools should be recognised as an important context for youth work. Youth workers
employed under the youth initiative need to connect with our educational institutions,
including colleges and some programming could occur at these sites. Many youth
centres in New Zealand now employ youth workers who provide regular sessions at their
local colleges.
The youth initiative provides access to activities that are not currently available in
the community
It should also provide programming that caters for the different needs and interests of
young people. The surveys show young people would like more provision of different
activities to support their social and recreation needs than is currently provided by
organisations in the south of the District. The voluntary nature of young people’s
participation in the youth initiative means programming must be structured around
enthusiasms, interests and concerns of young people who are involved or may become
involved if it’s attractive enough. No programme will meet the needs of more than a
segment of a given youth population and the youth initiative will require a mix of short,
medium (regular) and long term programming to cater to a wide range of young people.
The provision of different activities, offered at different times will ensure it fills a gap in
the provision of activities to support the social and recreation needs of young people and
help the initiative avoid being accessed only by a select group/s of young people.

The youth initiative is targeted at young people aged 13 years to 21 years
Focus groups participants made it clear that ‘young people’ did not want to be where
there were ‘little kids’. The term ‘youth’ often deterred older young people from
participating in events that were promoted as ‘youth’ specific events, and the term ‘youth
centre’ also holds similar connotations as being for ‘little kids’. Interviews with youth
development organisations and youth centres showed that effective programming often
required targeted activities for the different needs of young people in this age range. The
core age range who will utilise the initiative is aged 13 – 17 years. This reflects the
demographics which show that largest proportion of young people in the District are
aged 12 – 17 years (62 % of young people in the District). A Kāpiti based youth initiative
is unlikely to engage young people over 18 years unless activities are focused on their
interests such as developing their aspirations, future planning and opportunities in
employment and training.
Discussions with those who manage and are involved with different youth initiatives
provided insight into the demographics of young people who may access the youth
initiative. Trying to provide an initiative that caters to all young people was considered
unfeasible, as not all young people would participate, not because they do not want to,
but because they ‘do not need to’ as they are happy, socially aware and already
engaged in activities.
“...A youth centre is for those young people in the middle, which is the majority of kids –
they are not at-risk and they are not top of the class/totally engaged ones – they are
doing the teen thing and at times they can fall off the edge if they don’t have supports in
place... more than family.” (Manager of a youth centre)
The youth initiative needs to consider where young people are and are not in their
leisure time
The youth survey and focus groups provide important information about where young
people spend their leisure time and where they feel safe and unsafe. The initiative needs
to consider how to engage and have a presence in some of these spaces. Feeling
unsafe in particular spaces such as the train station and walking around after dark needs
addressing, especially if the initiative includes activities that take place (or conclude) in
the evening. Almost every focus group indicated they did not feel safe walking around
Kāpiti at night (unless in groups or intoxicated). Findings also show that outdoor spaces
such as local beaches and rivers are utilised by young people in the summer months.
The locations of activities and how young people get to and from activities are key to its
success.
The location/s of the initiative as a ‘neutral’ place is important to young people. The
Coastlands area was identified as a key place where young people felt was ‘neutral’;
where anyone from anywhere can go and ‘hang out there’. Young people felt many other
community facilities and locations had a territoriality about them which meant it was
owned by geographical community or community of interest (e.g. skateboarders).

The youth initiative needs to involve young people in decision making to ensure
youth ownership
Interviews with youth development organisations and youth centres show that having
effective youth participation in decision making is crucial in the success of any youth
initiative. Effective youth participation is about creating opportunities for young people to
be involved in influencing, shaping, designing and contributing to the development of
services and programmes (Ministry of Youth Development 2009). By using youth
participation you are more likely to get it right the first time and avoid wasting time and
money on services young people don't want to use. All options have the challenge of
‘ownership’ and ‘buy-in’ by young people. Without the support and involvement of young
people, any option will fail. Consideration needs to be given as to how the chosen option
will involve young people more in further planning, development and implementation.

7 What young people want
Any youth initiative option must reflect the needs and wants of the young people in the
community. This section outlines the key findings from focus groups in terms of young
people’s preferences and draws on international literature on young people, activity and
urban spaces. The three key findings related to what young people preferred:
 there was a strong need for a young people specific space;
 half of young people surveyed want a place(s) where they can do their
hobbies/interests with other young people; and
 free classes, workshops and access to free equipment were also desired.
A clear message from focus groups was a need/ want for a place that:
 is unique to young people;
 provides access to free or low cost activities; and
 has opportunities and spaces that are not available to them otherwise.
Young people also indicated they would like more events that are specific to ‘young
adults’ and some were enthusiastic about delivering these with a youth worker.
These discussions reflect key concepts emerging in international literature pertaining to

young people, activity and urban spaces. Discussions explore how social spaces and
places provide a context for identity development (Henderson & King 1999), particularly
as public spaces are crucial sites for youth development, providing opportunities for
“developing social competence, including independence and interdependence” (Skelton
& Gough 2013). Central to much of the reviewed literature is the desire and need by
young people for spaces to ‘hang out’ where they feel safe, can socialise, feel they
belong and have ownership over (Skelton & Gough 2013). There is also discussion
relating to the importance of a ‘third space’ (Oldfield), a space which is not school, work
or home. It provides a safe respite from the demands of those areas, and allows (young)
people an opportunity to be themselves. This is something young people in the focus
groups particularly highlighted they would like to see a provision for.

8 Options for a Youth Initiative
Three options have been developed for consideration, including a single space youth
centre. Option development drew on information provided from interviews with those in
the youth development field, local consultation and discussions with young people. This
section provides an outline of each option and discussion on how it meets the youth
initiative criteria. The strengths and limitations of each option are considered and the
options are compared.
The following provides a brief synopsis of each option:
 Option 1 - Clubs based would provide programming through existing

organisations. No youth worker is assigned, instead youth work training would be
provided. A coordination role would be required. Funding would be directed to
supporting existing organisations and their engagement with young people. This
option was developed as a result of interest from some stakeholders for a model
which provided better access for young people into existing club activities with
support.
 Option 2 - Mobile service is the provision of a mobile service which could have
a physically mobile space attached (i.e. bus). It involves ‘detached’ youth workers
engaging with young people through activities and events in the community. It
would draw on existing organisations and their spaces (as in Option 1) and
activities would also take place in public spaces.
 Option 3 - Outward focused centre is based on modified youth centre model.

Youth workers would provide programming in a central youth space and other
community spaces. There is opportunity for events and activities to be held
beyond the physical space in partnership with existing organisations as well as
inviting the community ‘inwards’ to provide services to young people in the
central space.
The options were assessed against a range of criteria from the feasibility study brief
including:
be themselves where they feel a sense of ownership;
approach;
obligations; and

a. Option 1: Clubs Based
Option 1 draws on the concept of utilising existing resources available in the south of the
District. Existing clubs and groups would provide programming to fulfil the needs of the
initiative. There is no youth worker assigned to this option instead youth work training would
be provided to existing recreational organisations that engage, or want to engage with young
people.
A coordination role would be required. Funding could be directed to supporting existing

organisations and their engagement with young people; this is an option that has been
suggested by some key stakeholders and members of the community.

How does Option 1 respond to the Youth Initiative Criteria?
a) Potential for youth ownership
There is likely to be limited youth participation in decision making in this option as social
and recreational organisations are adult led. Twenty seven organisations in the clubs
survey stated adults ran their activities and eight organisations included activities run by
young people. While activities may be run by young people in coaching and teaching
type roles, the decision making which determines the programme delivered to young
people is predominantly adult driven. Providing training and mentoring in youth
participation in decision making for organisations involved in the youth initiative may help
them to increase young people’s participation in programme development and delivery.
The absence of a space or spaces that young people can easily access and have
ownership over is a further limitation of this option. However, some organisations may be
willing to collaborate on making their facility (studio/gym/club) youth friendly and
accessible to young people on a regular basis.
b) Ability to provide a range of activities
The range of activities offered in this option is limited as it relies on the activities offered
by existing organisations. The gap identified in the youth survey that many young
people felt their activities/hobbies are not provided for by social and recreational
organisations in the District is not addressed. Young people who are interested in
existing activities provided by clubs will benefit more than those who want prefer to
engage in activities not currently provided by clubs. This is both reflected in the youth
survey and through focus group discussions. This limitation could be mitigated by
exploring ways of providing a broad range of activities (e.g. drawing on resources from
outside the area) and making them available to young people. However, this requires co-
ordinating venues, possibly transport and does not address the possibility of ongoing
provision of an activity.
c) Ability to provide good youth work under a youth development approach
As this option provides youth worker training to clubs and organisations rather than
actual youth workers, youth worker support is limited. While youth work training can be
provided, it is important to recognise that youth work is a profession and there is a
fundamental difference between a youth worker and someone who has received some
youth work training. It is also not the role or focus of a club/coach to support and mentor
a young person through personal changes in their life, and this reflects the difference
between the role of a youth worker and coach/leader.
Good youth workers run programmes of activities that engage young people and provide
gateways to achievement. When asked about pathways for development for young
people, competing (64%), becoming a leader (53%) and teaching others (60%) were the
main responses. While these may have some aspects of youth development associated
with them, youth development is not the primary focus of social and recreational
organisations. Focus group members were particularly concerned with this issue, one
group questioning whether someone trained in youth work at a club might be more
concerned with the recreational activity they provide, than with youth work/young people.

It also raises questions about how young people would access those staff who are given
youth worker training outside of structured activity sessions. A concern raised by young
people that only those who participated in specific activities run by existing social and
recreation organisations might have access to the designated person with youth work
training. For example, one group stated they would not want to go to a rugby club to see
a youth worker.
d) Ability to be community connected
Social and recreational organisations indicated they would like more young people
involved in their activities. Responses to the youth survey also suggest that young
people are willing to, and would like to try new activities (particularly if they are free).
This option would allow for coordination of activities and could respond to workshop
requests by young people in the range of activity currently provided across different
organisations. It also reduces the risk of duplicating existing activities in the community
and draws on knowledge and resources that are already available.
e) Ability to be open to all young people 13 – 21 years in the south of the District
The research associated with this study suggests young people over the age of 15 are
less involved with activities outside of school than those in the 13 to 14 year old age
group. Organisations were also primarily focused on secondary school student’s
schedules. This option is most likely to attract young people between the ages of 13 to
15, who are interested in structured activities that are readily available in the community.
Young people who are outside of this age range, particularly those not at secondary
school, may be excluded because of timing, accessibility and a lack of interest in
participating in structured club activities. There may also be challenges to running
activities for young people during the ‘off seasons’ of some organisations.
f) Could be easily accessed
Consideration would need to be given as to how to mitigate issues organisations and

young people have identified as barriers to participating in social and recreational club
activities. These include accessing organisations (transport issues, particularly if they are
not supported by parents), cost and motivation (commitment). The physical location of
different club facilities in a wide range of communities could be beneficial for those
young people from those communities but transport is likely to be an issue for the wider
youth population residing in other locations. Club facilities are also likely to be less
accessible to those who are not associated with the club (through their own or family
membership).
While the cost of programming run by clubs would be partly or fully subsidised to ensure
young people can access free or cheap activities, young people who wish to continue an
activity after engaging in a ‘taster’ through the youth initiative may be prohibited from
doing so because of costs, whether fees and/or equipment related. How they are
supported to attend and participate needs to be considered. This relates to developing
funding streams to support particular activities, with clear criteria established to
determine and assess which organisations receive funds.

One facility visited as a part of the feasibility study was a drop in youth space which is
provided in an unused space in a sports clubs. The activity which occurs there is not
associated with the club and it is primarily a space for young people to ‘hang out’. Staff
have noticed more young men access the space than young women. This may be partly
as a result of the youth space being physically connected to a club predominantly used
by men as well as the drop in nature of the activity. The youth space is also restricted in
its operation due to its location beside the clubrooms e.g. there are certain times/days
when young people cannot utilise the premises due to club activities and functions.
g) Be cost effective and sustainable
A youth initiative that involves supporting activities that are already available in the area
may have costs associated with it particularly to ensure good coordination of activity
across the organisations involved and low or free cost of programming for young people.
Further investigation would be required if this option is selected.
h) Be culturally inclusive and reflect the Council’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations
This would be hard to achieve unless organisations have an existing commitment to

Treaty obligations and being culturally inclusive.
Youth worker training provided could include a Treaty of Waitangi module which is
currently delivered in certificate and degree level youth work training.
Young people’s views on Option 1
In addition to the points already discussed, young people raised other concerns. Focus
group members felt that this option was spread geographically and demographically,
separating young people and activities, rather than drawing them together. It was
highlighted that young people like to be in the same spaces as their friends, but because
they all had different interests, they would be in different places, not necessarily
together. There were also comments that this option may have a limited lifespan. One-off
activities might generate initial interest but if there is no continuity, or other opportunities,
participation would wane.
Young people were particularly concerned with the absence of youth ‘ownership’ and a
youth owned space in this option. Activities were less likely to be youth initiated, youth
owned or led, and may not be specifically for young people. They felt the option focused
on ‘doing stuff’, being involved in activities and not really focused on young people doing
‘their own thing’. There was a concern that a youth specific space where young people
have ownership is not provided for in this option.

b. Option 2: Mobile Service
This option involves detached youth workers engaging with young people through
activities and events in the community, particularly in spaces where young people
already are. This option has two versions.
Version A: Mobile Service

with a movable space (bus)
Version A includes a physically mobile space such as a bus that would ‘park up’ at the
location of an event and could also go to other locations where young people gather such as
a skate park. The mobile space would not provide transport for young people to get to event/
activity but rather act as a space to be engaged in as a part of the activity. The vehicle could
include computers, a television screen, a coffee machine, library, and a place to talk with a
youth worker.
Similar mobile spaces are popular in large Australian cities as outreach services and in areas
where young people are geographically spread out in the United Kingdom. There is no
similar model in New Zealand.

Version B: Mobile Service
without a movable space
Version B does not include a physically mobile space (i.e. bus). It would access existing
outdoor and indoor spaces to run activities for young people. A vehicle would be needed
to transport equipment to different locations.
A mobile service like this was initiated late last year in Nelson to provide events in different
locations around the city. This service has a large truck for transporting equipment (such
as staging, generators and recreational resources) to the event location. Marquees are
used for sheltering computers and gaming equipment and to create spaces for young

A sense of youth ownership could be developed more easily when activities are run with
spaces where young people already ‘hang out’ in the south of the District. Focus groups
commented that some of these places are ‘owned’ by sub-groups of young people and
the territoriality young people experience would need addressing. A mechanism for
youth participation in decision making would also need to be established to ensure
programming and implementation had youth input and buy-in. ‘The Truck’ mobile youth
service in Nelson provides events management training for young people so they can
get involved in running the events.
The range of activities offered in this option could be diverse in terms of content;
engaging in a wide range of spaces and with different organisations. Good promotion is
key to its success as programming is not offered in a central space and young people
would need to know what and where things are happening ahead of time.
This option is more limited in offering a range of long term programmes for young people
due to the nature of a mobile service and the challenges of transport and weather
considerations. Activities in spaces where young people are present (such as a beach,
river or park) would be feasible in summer, but would present more challenges in winter.
The programme would need to respond to seasonal weather changes and provide more
in the summer months in public spaces. In addition, a mobile service could fill the gap in
provision of structured activities for young people over the summer holiday period.
Winter programming would be more limited and likely to depend on community indoors
spaces which may have less youth connection. There are few indoor spaces in the
District that young people find attractive and access in winter months. Some young
people were looking forward to the new Aquatic Centre as a space they could access
with their friends.
Mobile services tend to be more event focused than youth development focused and
youth work opportunities are likely to be limited for this model. Youth workers organising
mobile youth events often find their time being spent on the necessary tasks of event
management with activities run in a multitude of locations, each of which has its own
specific event and risk requirements rather than on youth work roles. Relationship
building with young people is critical to youth work. While this option may strengthen
relationships with the owners of spaces/places and community organisations, the youth
worker’s ability to build relationships with young people is limited. The following steps
could help mitigate this; providing several youth workers at any one event, ensuring
youth workers have time regularly built into their schedules to engage outside of events
(detached youth work provision) and providing a small space for the youth workers to
work from and interact with young people.

Those who work or have worked with a youth mobile service model describe their roles
as requiring events management and physical strength to set up for events in different
venues. A heavy vehicle license is also a requirement for youth workers operating a
mobile service, whether the vehicle is operating as an equipment transporter or mobile
youth space. Unlike hosting an event in a single space where doors can be shut and
clean up done the following day, a mobile transporter model results in youth workers
working long hours after events. Youth workers with a combination of these skills and
abilities could be challenging to find.
Young people in the focus groups were attracted to the activities that were used as
examples, such as pool party, skate park competition or a beach fun day. However, most
young people felt the focus was primarily on one-off events and provided little continuity.
Option 2 has the potential to engage with organisations and events in the community
and create opportunities for young people to participate in. This may include providing a
youth-friendly presence at community events young people may previously felt were
irrelevant to them, or providing a ‘break out’ or ‘safe’ space at an activity/event run by
another organisation. By working with existing groups, this option could have benefits for
community organisations seeking to increase their engagement with young people.
As outlined in the previous sections, Coastlands is considered by young people to be a

central neutral place for them to ‘hang out’ in Kāpiti. Collaboration with the Mall
management to include events and activities could be initiated by the youth worker.
There are various projects in Australia that have undertaken this with some success,
including the employment of a part-time youth worker and provision of an office space in
some shopping centres 5 . Whether there would be ‘buy in’ by relevant stakeholders for
this (including young people) would need to be explored.
As with Option 1, Option 2 may attract 13 and 14 year olds in the community. The focus
groups made up of young people over the age of 15 felt that youth specific events are
aimed at ‘little kids’ or would attract children even if they were promoted to older young
people. Activities held in outdoor and public spaces are not easily controlled in terms of
the participant age group. Activities may attract children which would work to deter
young people aged 15 years and older attending. There was concern about how events
would be managed to focus on young adults and to avoid ‘little kids’ coming to them.
Focus group participants were keen to have events that catered for and were specific to
their needs rather than those of ‘little kids’.
5
The concept of ‘rights of passage’ was used to emphasise a co-operative use of public space by Westfield management
in the Midland Gate Shopping Centre in Western Australia and in the Shire of Sutherland, New South Wales. Young
people were seen as legitimate users of public space, rather than problems to be dealt with. The project involves sporting
activities such as basketball and skateboarding and hands on multimedia programmes supported by a youth consultation
committee.

In order to engage with young people over 15 and those no longer at secondary school,
a plan would need to be developed to seek out the spaces older young people engage
with and develop activities in partnership with organisations working with this age group
including training providers and tertiary education providers. This option would need to
target activities in specific places for specific audiences at specific times of the day.
It is also worth noting that evaluating and capturing numbers of young people who
engage with and participate in this option is more difficult. This could be relevant for
seeking funding and reporting on the success of the youth initiative.
This option has benefits for those young people who may find it difficult to access a
centralised location but may limit young people living further away from the location of an
event. Events held where young people are already present will mitigate any transport
challenges while those held in other community locations would need transport issues to
be addressed. Discussion of Option 2 with focus groups reflected an enthusiasm for a
bus or vehicle to take them to events both in and outside the community. Many of the
focus groups found the idea of a bus as a form of transport to take them to events and
activities more attractive than a mobile space (bus parked at an event as a youth space).
Further investigation would be needed to identify if this is something that would be
beneficial to include in the development of the youth initiative in the future.
The territoriality young people experience in some places would need addressing if
events are to attract young people outside of that geographical community. For example,
an event held in Marine Gardens is likely to attract young people who live in that
community and attend Kāpiti College rather than young people who attend Paraparaumu
College. Young people outside of Kāpiti College are likely to see Marine Gardens as a
Kāpiti College territory (focus group). Addressing and overcoming territoriality could
however have benefits for young people across the communities.
Depending on the level of service this option provides, there may be substantial costs to
delivery. Version A (mobile space) would have significantly more capital costs due to the
need to purchase and fit out a mobile space. Version B (no mobile space) may have
lower capital costs than Version B but it is important to recognise that capital costs are
likely to still be significant depending on resource purchase (i.e. sound equipment,
staging, marquees) and the type of transporter required to shift equipment around.
Staffing would be a significant operating cost with the recommendation that a number of
staff are required to ensure good event management and youth work can occur at
activities. Further investigation would be required if this option is selected.
Underlying governance framework and values could be developed with these criteria in
mind. Working with organisations and in locations where iwi and different ethnic groups
feel ownership would support this.

Option 2, while having some appeal in providing a ‘youth presence’ at events, raised
many questions and limitations. Young people felt a bus as transport rather than as a
youth space was more important to them in Option 2 A. Young people had limited
enthusiasm for Option 2 B (without a mobile space). Focus group members were
concerned with practical aspects of the vehicle including that the space would be too
small to hold more than a limited number of people (“you couldn’t hold a gig on the bus”)
and the types of activities would also be restricted (“couldn’t do dancing or have a jam
session”). There was some appeal in the concept that a mobile space could go to where
a young person was but also concern at the need to ‘’go chasing a bus all over town’’ if
they needed to access the youth worker or youth space.
Continuity and stability were also issues the focus groups raised. As with the Option 1,
there may be many ‘one-off’ events but opportunities for ongoing involvement in
activities was limited. There was also concern as to how young people would know
where a mobile physical space/ activity would be located. The importance of stability for
parents was raised, as was the fact that some young people would still need a form of
transport to get to wherever the bus/event was located.
The importance of a ‘neutral space’ continued to be highlighted in this option. One focus
group suggested that wherever the mobile space went, it would be utilised only by young
people in that area (if it went to Kaitawa, then Kaitawa people would use it), causing less
inclusivity rather than breaking down barriers. There was some discussion about
whether a mobile space could be ‘captured’ by particular groups because it was so
small, further resulting in exclusivity. Another focus group indicated a mobile space could
be a ‘temporary’ solution to the absence of a youth space, with a participant suggesting
it implied “we can’t afford a space, so we’ll come to you”.

c. Option 3: Outward Focused Centre
Option 3 is based on modified youth centre model; an outward focused centre in one
fixed geographic location for young people. It would provide youth workers running
programming in the youth space and other community spaces.
This option provides opportunities for ‘outwards’ activity. Events and activities would be
held beyond the physical space in partnership with existing organisations as well as
inviting the community ‘inwards’ to provide services, experiences and opportunities to
young people in the central physical space.

Young people are attracted to ‘magnet activities’ in youth centres; free and fun things to
do and the opportunity to socialise and connect with peers. A key characteristic of a
youth centre is the variety of activities available for young people. These magnet
activities form the basis for entry into more structured activities with youth workers where
learning, support, mentoring, and positive youth development outcomes occur.
Many of the youth centres interviewed commented that their success and good
participation levels were as a result of:
 a diverse programme, responsive to changing youth needs and interests;
 being based on the principles of youth development;
 employing youth workers under the Youth Work Code of Ethics;
 having a youth friendly facility with key components which attract young people;
 youth workers working from their ‘youth centre’ base and in the community;
 having a strong relationship with other organisations;
 providing programmes out of need and demand as determined by young people;

and
 involving young people in governance and operations of the centre.
Limitations and challenges faced by some youth centres included:
 consistent and sustainable funding issues;
 managing volunteers;
 being in an inappropriate location;
 public relations, particularly with neighbouring businesses; and
 security of facilities.
Three ideas were considered in relation to where a space could be located:
 a youth space located with an existing shared community facility (e.g. the
Community Centre or library);
 a youth space connected with an existing youth service (e.g. youth training
services or youth health); or
 a stand-\alone physical space for young people.

A youth centre set up with good youth participation in decision making processes can go
a long way in ensuring youth ownership of the space and its activities in and outside of
that space. Involving young people right from the beginning in the establishment of a
youth centre would help young people to develop connection and ownership in the
space and its activities. This includes things like naming of the youth centre, determining
look and feel and fit out requirements of a youth space. Many youth centres utilise older
young people as mentors and volunteers in their space to build youth ownership.
Establishing pathways for young people to develop their engagement in a youth centre is
another way youth centres build youth participation and buy-in. For example, a
Wellington based youth centre commented that a young person may initially come along
to ‘play’ on computers, youth workers then engage with them, find out their interests and
connect them to other activities in the youth centre and beyond. As a young person
builds their relationship with the youth centre and its youth workers, there is more
potential for youth participation in decision making to occur.
Youth ownership does not happen overnight. Youth centre managers interviewed
highlighted the importance of understanding that it takes time for a youth centre to
become part of the local youth culture. Uptake in participation by young people may
initially be low in numbers, but as the space and programmes become part of their
community and lives, numbers increase. Young people also noted that it would take time
to build up participation. They suggested that over a generation of young people (who
are year 9 now), within three to five years, the space will gain status and ‘older’ young
people could be given responsibilities. Responsiveness to trends in young people’s
interests is also significant in the success of this option.
Youth centres can face issues and decreasing numbers when a certain group of young
people develop ‘ownership’ of the space at the exclusion of other young people. This
happens more commonly in drop-in centres where there is minimum programming to
attract a wide range of young people. Youth centre managers interviewed avoid what
they refer to as ‘being captured’ by one or two groups of young people through strategic
planning of opening hours, timetabling and programmes offered. Some centres offer
specific activities for different ages, interest groups or genders on different days. The
provision of different spaces in a physical building also enables different groups and
activities to be present at the same time. A combination of structured and unstructured
activities helps to cater to the multiple needs of young people.
Unstructured and structured activities are both essential in an effective youth centre.
Some of the structured activities in New Zealand youth centres include workshops,
programmes and events for a wide range of activities from sports to arts activities. Youth
centres also offer opportunities for unstructured activities such as online gaming,
socializing, club meetings, computer use, café spaces and places for young people to
meet and undertake activities on their own (such as basketball half courts, music
practice rooms).

Youth centres which lack any structured activities or skill development programmes (i.e.
youth drop in centres) often have poor outcomes and may even promote antisocial
behaviours amongst young people (Ministry of Youth Development 2010). However
unstructured activities still play an important part in a youth centre when youth workers
provide supervision and support throughout and there is a ‘pathway’ through to
structured activities. Option 3 would need to ensure a balance between unstructured and
structured activities as well as offer a range of pathways to other opportunities for young
people.
Option 3 is primarily an indoor space, although internationally there are models that
combine indoor and outdoor elements. Depending on the locality of this option and the
environment it is located in, this may also be a consideration.
Several youth centre managers commented that unstructured activity and ‘hang out’ café
times were important in provided initial access for young people to the youth centre.
They emphasized that youth workers would engage with young people during these
times and support them to ‘pathway’ through to other opportunities in the youth centre
including structured activities and programmes. Outcomes for young people are
improved when they engage in structured activities at the youth centres.
For Option 3 to be successful, a good practical base with a youth development approach
delivered by trained youth workers is needed for it to meet this criterion. The aims/
objectives and practice model of a youth centre are significant in determining the
success of youth work and reaching youth development outcomes. Some of the youth
centres investigated were focused on providing fun activities for young people to do
without a youth development basis to their purpose. Those centres were primarily youth
entertainment spaces with recreation/ social facilities for young people and those
employed within them were not youth workers and were focused on facility management
rather than youth development goals.
Managing appropriate behaviour in a youth development approach is important for any

chosen option. Other youth centres establish peer responsibilities, behaviour codes and
have minimal charges associated with using some equipment (i.e. a recording studio).
Young people in focus groups were concerned with the importance of respect (each
other/and the space), often discussing ways of monitoring the space and equipment,
costs, and being drug/alcohol free.
Youth workers are key to the success of a youth centre focused on youth development
outcomes. Youth centre managers highlighted the importance of employing qualified and
effective youth workers. Many noted that staff not employed as a youth workers in a
facility (such as sound technicians and volunteers) must also work from a youth
development approach.
A strong relationship with other youth services is also essential in meeting this criterion.
A clear referral process to other agencies is required when young people engaged in the
youth centre require counselling or other support outside of the youth work role.

This option requires the involvement of organisations and groups being engaged with
young people through three different ways; organisations by coming into the space to do
something with young people (inward focused), youth workers doing activities in
organisation’s space (outward focused) and partnering with organisations to do activities
in other spaces (outward focused).
Youth centres which are inward focused are limited in their connection to their
community by their physical space. This is a common model in New Zealand. These
youth centres may bring some organisations into their space to run activities with young
people (like a dance school) or provide an outreach service (like careers advisor or
health nurse) but don’t generally seek to create partnerships with other organisations
outside of their physical location. This limits their ability to connect with opportunities out
in the community, and with a wider range of organisations.
In general, local stakeholders felt Option 3 would have benefits and opportunities for
young people they worked with (as would Option 1 & 2). Many social and recreational
organisations and church youth groups said they would be interested in accessing a
youth space 6 . However, there were some concerns and advice that:
 the model needed to be based in a youth development framework;
 that a youth centre needed to be carefully developed; and
 the project should not be operated by Council.
Research from Canada suggests that a minimum of three significant links with the
community is critical in the success of a youth centre (Youth Centres Canada 2013). For
Option 3 to capture the full potential of being a community resource, engagement with
community needs to be both into the youth space and out in the community. Centres
around New Zealand based on a similar model as Option 3 also hire out the youth space
during ‘down times’ thus creating a stream of revenue. Some of the ways outward
focused youth centres engage with their wider community include: helping out with
community events, partnering with organisations to deliver programmes in their location
(e.g. schools, clubs and youth groups), running mobile events with another organisation
to help bolster their relationship with young people.
6
Approximately one third of the recreational/ social organisations surveyed indicated they would access a youth friendly
free space if it was available, another third indicated ‘maybe’ and the remainder said they would not do so. Half of the
church youth groups interviewed stated they would benefit from having a free and accessible space available to their
group for events or weekly use.

This option offers both opportunities and challenges for wider community involvement
and acceptance. A central youth space creates a focal point where young people can be
seen and located in the community. Managed well, youth centres can help to break
down stereotypes of young people in communities and develop positive relationships
between young people and the general public. However, some youth centres struggle to
be accepted by their communities and are labelled as trouble spots with negative youth
incidents in a community being seen as the fault of the centre. Some focus groups felt
their presence, when in groups with their peers, was viewed negatively by other
members of the community. Some mentioned they were perceived as ‘causing trouble’,
not just in Coastlands, but in other public places where they met as groups. These
negative perceptions of young people would impact in Option 3 and need to be
addressed in the development and ongoing management of a youth centre.
Having a central location which allows the public to see the youth centre balanced with
youth ownership and the ability of the youth centre to function as young people require is
key. Good management in terms of public relations with neighbouring
businesses/activities, and developing policies to respond to certain behaviours which are
viewed as undesirable (e.g. smoking, littering) by the public is essential.
Youth centres provide an open access or a universal service for all young people as
opposed to a targeted service/ programme for a few young people (Ministry of Youth
Development 2010). While not targeting ‘at risk’ young people, the youth space would
not exclude them. However, youth centre managers interviewed highlighted the
importance of focusing on target groups in the universal definition of ‘youth’ and then
developing magnet programmes in response to that group’s specific interests and
needs. This acknowledges the difference in need/ interest within the age range, gender,
ethnicity and youth sub-cultural groups.
Depending on programmes management, Option 3 has the potential to engage a wide

demographic range of young people who vary in age, gender, ethnicity and interest. The
target demographic may be between 13 to 17 years of age, with older young people
possibly taking on roles of responsibility. However, programmes and activities that
provide skill development (such as interview techniques/ specific skill training) could be
offered, and may attract a wider range of young people.
Youth centres may also attract more young men than young women. This is particularly
true for youth centres focused on providing drop-in times rather than a programme of
structured and unstructured activities. Several youth centre managers commented that
having programmes and spaces designed by and for young women were important in
youth centres as is having female youth work staff and volunteers.

The location of a youth centre has a huge impact on its ability to get young people
through the door. Youth centre managers interviewed highlighted that youth centres are
most likely to gain youth attendance when they are located in a town centre, in close
proximity to central public transport hubs and close to a route where young people travel
regularly (i.e. to and from college). For a youth space under Option 3 to be successful, it
should be within easy walking distance of Coastlands and the train station. As discussed
earlier, young people identified the Coastlands area as a central neutral place for them.
By locating a youth centre near this area, the youth initiative reduces issues of
territoriality. Young people also raised issues of feeling stereotyped by adults in
Coastlands (i.e. being viewed as ‘shoplifters’). A youth centre located in the town centre
would require a public relations plan in order to shift any negative youth stereotypes.
Also discussed earlier, all focus groups felt unsafe walking around the Kāpiti District at
night and many felt unsafe in the Paraparaumu train station after dark. How young
people leave a central youth centre and make their way home, in particular accessing
the train station after dark, would need addressing if activities are held in the evening.
Activities held in other venues and public spaces would need to address the same
access issues discussed under Option 2.
Young people from Waikanae and Paekākāriki may have more limited access in the
weekends to a central youth space than those living closer to Paraparaumu. Young
people from Waikanae and Paekākāriki in the focus groups commented that any central
space is best placed near the Paraparaumu train station. College students from these
communities felt they would access a youth centre after school if it was near the train
station. Some commented that they spend their weekends around Paraparaumu and the
Coastlands vicinity and would utilise a youth centre in this area, while others were less
likely to do so in the weekend unless a special event was occurring. Having a good
mobile outreach programme and locating any youth centre near the Paraparaumu train
station would help to minimise barriers for those young people from communities outside
of Paraparaumu.
The 2012 Long Term Plan provides for $650,000 capital funding in 2014/15 and
operational funding to cover the cost of capital and operating costs for the out years. The
cost of establishing Option 3 has not changed from this. Building leases in close
proximity to the Paraparaumu town centre are on average $60,000 – 70,000. The cost of
purchasing a building would be significantly higher. If a short term space was secured for
a youth centre to operate from, there would need to be allowance for further capital
expenditure if the youth centre was to be relocated to a more permanent location at a
later stage. Operational costs would need to encompass activity which occurs inside and
outside of the central space (including community and mobile programming). Further
investigation would be required if either version of this option is selected.
Underlying governance framework and values could be developed with these criteria in
mind. Employing Māori youth worker/s and utilising a kaupapa Māori model alongside
an international youth development model would help support this.

Of the three options, young people were most enthusiastic about Option 3. Young
people’s needs and wants, as highlighted by those who responded to the youth survey
and participated in the focus groups, are reflected in Option 3. It was viewed as a space
that could be youth owned with the support of youth workers, where young people could
initiate and ‘do their own thing’, not just be ‘occupied’ by structured activities. Stability
was identified as a key for young people in terms of knowing where something and
someone is on a regular basis and were attracted to the stability offered by a central
youth space.
Young people liked the idea of having a centralised physical space for them to be, with
opportunities to engage with other groups and organisations in the community (both
within the physical space and outside it); a two way relationship. They also liked the idea
of having activities that went to the community (for those who might not be able to get to
the centre, or going to places where young people are (e.g. at the skate park, running a
beach volleyball competition, etc). There was also some discussion about the
advantages of having a ‘bus’ that transported young people to events in and outside of
the District.
Focus groups suggested a central youth space could be fitted out with a cafe, a dance
studio, a recording studio, a stage for gigs, computers and free Wi-Fi, a space to hang
out with friends and spaces to try new things. Further research with young people
around this option would be required to determine the specifications of a physical space.
Some focus group members liked the idea of going to space where activities could be
running, and having the option of trying them out. Being cost-free was also important to
young people although a number of groups said they would be willing to pay a
reasonable cost at a youth (led and run) café in the building. They also suggested a
nominal fee for access to some equipment (such as a recording studio or musical
instruments), would encourage respect for those items.
Young people’s preferred option for the configuration of a physical space is a standalone
building. The key points made by the focus groups with regard to the configuration of a
physical space and why a standalone physical space was their preferred option is
outlined on the following page.

Possible configurations of a Young people’s thoughts
physical space
A youth space located with an  Concerns that if in a shared space, young people
existing shared community facility would be bound by the constraints of (older) other
(e.g. the Community Centre or people.
library)  No ownership by young people.
 Limitations on young people’s behaviour
(concerns that adults might disapprove of their
loudness and just behaving like young people).
 If it’s shared with adults then it is adults who
decide things.
 Most focus group members did not like the idea
of a shared space with the library – this was not a
space they used.
 Too many constraints (rules about being quiet/
certain behaviour).
 Time constraints in regards to opening hours and
access.
 Not suitable for youth related activities.
A youth space connected with an  Some felt there would be a stigma associated to
existing youth service (e.g. youth having a youth space attached with a health
training services or youth health) service and were concerned about privacy; others
thought there would be benefits and that
shame/embarrassment could be managed.
 A youth space should be about being fun and not
so serious (like a counselling service), but should
be a place where you can find out about those
things.
 Some young people stated that having a strong
relationship with other services was important
(being able to connect with and have access to)
but not in the same building.
 Some stated being in walking distance to other
services would be useful.
A standalone physical space for  Stronger youth ownership possible.
young people  If it’s by itself, young people have more say in it.
 The other options bring restrictions - people
telling us what to do, certain look and feel of the
place.
 We need our own space; everything in Kāpiti is
for adults.
 Means less restrictions – we can do more like run
things at night time, no ‘take your hoodie’ off
rules.
 People will respect it more because it’s theirs.
 Young people will be attracted to something just
designed for young people.
 We don’t have anything just for young people
here.

9 A Comparative Overview of Three Options
The table below highlights how each option compares in terms of meeting the youth
initiative criteria. How each option stacks up against each criterion is expanded further in
following section. Criteria (i) is not covered in this analysis as none of the options
duplicate services that already exist. Currently, there are no services, organisations or
activities that meet the youth initiative criteria. Each option would draw on and engage
with existing services in different ways.
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:

Youth Initiative Criteria Club Mobile Outward
Based Service Focused
Centre
b) Ability to provide a wide range of activities
c) Ability to provide good youth worker support

under a youth development approach
e) Open to all young people aged 13 – 21 in the

south of the District
f) Could be easily accessible
h) Reflect the Council’s Treaty of Waitangi

obligations
i) Not duplicate existing services for young people
Does not meet criterion
Some challenges to
overcome to meet criterion
Strong likelihood of
meeting this criterion
Further investigation is
required

Comparison of Strengths and Benefits
Option 1: Clubs Based Option 2: Mobile Service Option 3: Outward Focused

Centre
Draws on existing community Draws on existing community Draws on existing community
resources resources resources
Minimises possibilities of replication Ability to engage with young Reflects the wants of young people
of activities people where they already are
Enables access to youth workers
Encourages organisations to Able to provide a ‘youth presence’ both within a physical space and
develop awareness and skills in at community events and help out in the community
supporting youth development build intergenerational
understanding Develops relationships in physical
Young people may benefit from location and beyond with young
additional funding into an Able to provide activities and people and organisations
organisation they are already events in wide range of
involved with communities Able to have the same benefits of
Option 2 if outward focus is put into
Supports organisations to develop Could cater to young people action
their youth membership across the whole District,
including Otāki Provides stability for young people
(and their parents)
Provides youth workers who can
move around the District running Enables young people to ‘be
activities themselves’
Provides resources for events Activities more easily able to be

which other organisations could youth initiated and youth led
access
Centres on strong youth
development model(s) and
principles

Comparison of Limitations and Barriers
Option 1: Club Based Option 2: Mobile Service Option 3: Outward Focused

Centre
Young people who have an interest Risk and event management Requires a physical space
in a particular activity will benefit
Need for youth workers with Initial uptake may be low
Activities may tend to be ‘one offs’ additional skill sets
with limited ongoing support Negative associations with ‘youth
Risk of ‘capturing’ by specific centres’
Locations may be difficult to access groups needs to be managed
Risk of being ‘captured’ by specific
Limited access to a youth worker Lacking stability groups
Limited opportunities to develop Many activities will be weather Need for strong public relations
relationships dependent plan
Transport, cost and timing could Youth worker/s tied up with event Could exclude young people living
continue to be issues management rather than doing outside of Paraparaumu depending
youth work on location
No physical space for young people
to meet with a youth worker or each Limited physical space for young
other people to meet with a youth
worker or each other
Not youth initiated or youth led
Could be difficult to ensure youth
Likely to attract a younger age initiated or youth led activities
range (13 and 14 year olds)
Could exclude young people in
the ‘older’ age bracket who
believe events are for ‘little kids’.
Determining participation
numbers and evaluating the
‘service’ could be problematic

10 Conclusion and Recommendations
The feasibility study has examined research, information and contexts relevant to the
establishment of a youth initiative in the south of the Kāpiti Coast District. It has
determined that existing services and organisations provide activity options for some
young people in the District, but do not provide spaces/places where young people can
be themselves, engage in both structured and unstructured activities, and access a
youth worker. None of the three options discussed would duplicate existing services and
organisations, but have the opportunity to engage with and draw on these, connecting
young people and the wider community.
The three options presented for the youth initiative were:
 Option 1 - clubs based utilising existing resources, mainly in recreational clubs

and the provision of youth work training is provided to staff;
 Option 2 - mobile service involving detached youth workers engaging with

young people through activities and events in the community, particularly in
spaces where young people already are; and
 Option 3 - outward focused centre based on modified youth centre model.

Youth workers would provide programming in a central youth space and activities
would be delivered beyond the physical space in other places in the community.
In considering the options in the context of international, national and local research
(including the views of young people), the first two models did not sufficiently meet the
criteria established for a youth initiative. The third model best meets the youth initiative
criteria and also reflects the views of young people who were involved in the research; in
particular, that young people in the District strongly desire a space where they can be
themselves and have ownership over. Options that include a physical space and provide
access to free activities and equipment were preferred by young people who participated
in the research focus groups. A central location (such as near Coastlands or the railway
station) was indicated as important for a physical model, as was a dedicated, standalone
youth space (that is not shared with other facilities). Drawing on these aspects, and
ensuring the youth initiative is based on a strong youth development model is significant
in the development of the recommendation of a physical, standalone space, involving
inward and outward activities delivered by youth workers.
The key recommendation from this feasibility study is that the Council
establishes a standalone physical youth space for the youth initiative.

It is also recommended that:
 the youth space model is outward focused, engaging with communities, iwi and
organisations which young people access;
 young people are heavily involved in the development of the youth space and the
delivery of operations once it is established from determining the look, feel, name
and fit out of the space through to providing the ideas and trends for
programmes, services and other activities which the youth space would provide;
 qualified youth workers are employed for the project and the guidelines for
implementation of the Code of Ethics for Youth Work in New Zealand are put into
practice; and
 the youth development approach underpinning the youth space is aligned with a
kaupapa Māori approach and uses both an internationally recognised model
partnered with a Māori models outlined in this study.
It is also recommended that further investigation conducted:
 into the requirements of young people in the youth space;
 into the most appropriate governance model for the youth space; and
 into appropriate buildings which are available for lease/ sale in order to determine
final costs.

11 Bibliography
International Planned Parenthood Federation. (2008). Springboard: A hands-on guide to
developing youth friendly centres. International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Alberti Gambone M, Cao Yu H, Lewis-Charp H, Sipe C L, & Lacoe J. (2004, October). A

comparative analysis of community youth development strategies: Circle Working Paper
23.
Ara Taiohi Inc. (2011) Code of Ethics for Youth Work in Aotearoa New Zealand, Second
Edition, Wellington, 2011.
Arbreton A, Bradshaw M, Metz R, Sheldon J, & Pepper S. (2008). More time for teens:
Understanding teen participation - frequency, intensity and duration - in Boys and Girls
Clubs.
Bourke C. (2010, September). Library youth space vs. youth friendly libraries: How to
make the most of what you have. Aplis, 23(3), 98-102.
Brendtro L, Brokenleg M and Van Bockern S. (2002). Reclaiming youth at risk: our hope
for our future, Solution Tree Press, Bloomington.
Bruce J, Boyce K, Campbell J, Harrington J, Major D and Williams A. (2009). Youth work
that is of value: Towards a model of best practice. Youth Studies Australia, 8(2).
Camino L, and Zeldin S. (2002). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic
engagement in the day to day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4),
213-220.
Chana,T K. (2007). Youth Activism and Participation: Literature review on best practices
in engaging youth.
Crane P, and Dee M. (2001). Young people, public space and new urbanism. Youth
Studies Australia, 20(1), 11-18.
Derr L, and Rhodes A. (2010). The public library as urban youth space: Redefining
public libraries through services and space for young people for an uber experience.
Aplis, 23(3), 90-97.
Department of Internal Affairs (1984) An Evaluation of the Detached Youth Worker

Funding Scheme, Department of Internal Affairs
Durie M. (1994). Whaiaora – Mãori health development, Oxford University Press,

Auckland, New Zealand.
Fleming M. (n.d.). Wisconsin youth futures technical report #6 Youth centres: Operation
and development issues. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from CYFERnet: Children, Youth and
Families Education and Research Network: www1.cyfernet.org/prog/teen/94-
youthfut6.html
Fouche C, Elliott K, Mundy-McPhearson S, Jordan V, and Bingham T. (July 2010). The

impact of Youth Work for Young People: A systematic review for the Health Council of
New Zealand and the Ministry of Youth Development.
Friedrich S, and Gabi Muri P. (n.d.). Suitability of Public Spaces in restructured areas for
appropriation by young people. Retrieved from aesop05:
http://places.designobserver.com/media/pdf/Mistaking_Comm_327.pdf
Hamilton S F, Hamilton M A, and Pittman K. Principles for Youth Development. In S F

Hamilton and M A Hamilton (Eds.) 2004, The Youth Development Handbook: Coming of
Age in American Communities (pp.3-22). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Henderson K A, and King K. (1999). Youth places and spaces: Case studies of two teen
clubs. Journal of Park and Recreational Administration, 17(2), 28-41.
Innovation Centre for Community and Youth Development. (3004). Creating change:
How organizations connect with youth, build communities and strengthen themselves.
Innovation Centre for Community and Youth Development.
Karow D, and von Seggeru H. (n.d.). Socio-spatial experiments with young people in
urban public open space. University of Hanover, Institute of Open Space Development
and Planning-related Sociology, Germany.
Luken S, and Warner A. (2005, June). What makes for a successful youth centre.
Retrieved February 2013, from Heartwood: Centre for Community Youth Development:
www.heartwood.ns.ca
Mahoney J L, Stattin H, and Lord H. (2004). Unstructured youth recreation centre

participation and antisocial behaviour development: Selection influences and the
moderating role of antisocial peers. The International Journal for Behavioural
Development, 28(6), 553-560.
Malone K. (2002, October). Street life: Youth, culture and the competing uses of space.
Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 157-168.
Martin L. (2006), Real Work: A Report from the National Research Project on the State
of Youth Work in Aotearoa, National Youth Workers Network.
Ministry of Youth Affairs, (2002), Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa, Ministry of

Youth Affairs, Wellington, New Zealand.
Ministry of Youth Development (2009) Youth participation benefits for your organisation,
Ministry of Youth Development, Wellington, New Zealand.
Ministry of Youth Development, (2010). Youth Centres: Attributes of Effectiveness,

Ministry of Youth Development, Wellington, New Zealand.
Mion E G. (2010, May 25). Youth Centres. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from YBDG:
http://www.wbdg.org/design/youth_centres.php
Morrow V. (2001). Using qualitative methods to elicit young people's perspectives on

their environments: some ideas for community mental health initiatives. Health and
Education Research, 16(3), 255-268.
Pere R. (1991). Te Wheke. Gisborne: Ao Ake.
Search Institute (1990) http://www.search-institute.org/developmental-assets

Skelton T, and Gough K V. (2013, February). Introduction: Young people's immobile
urban geographies. Urban Studies, 50(3), 455-466.
Smith M. (2005). Detached, street-based and project work with young people. Retrieved
April 18, 2013, from infed: http://www.infed.org/youthwork/b-detyw.htm
Sorhaindo A, and Feinstein L. (2007). The role of youth clubs in integrated provision for
young people: An assessment of a model of best practise. Centre for Research on the
Wider Benefits of Learning Institute of Education, University of London.
The Stelly Canteen: Submission to the Nova Scotia Health Promotion Promising
Practices Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://hpclearinghouse.net/files/folders/hpppshared_documents/entry5578.aspx
Travlou P. (2003, July). Teenagers and public space: Literature Review. OPENspace
Research Centre: Edinburgh College of Art and Heriot-Watt University.
Voakes L, and Pearson D. (2010). A national youth centre strategy: Building protective
factors - reducing risk. The Canadian Youth Centre Challenge 2007 - 2010. Canada:
Town Youth Participation Strategies.
Wayne Francis Charitable Trust: Youth Advisory Group 2011. (2011). Positive youth
development in Aotearoa: "Weaving connections - Tuhonohono rangatahi".
Williams P, and Edwards J. (2011). Nowhere to go and nothing to do: How public
libraries mitigate the impacts of parental work and urban planning on young people.
Aplis, 24(4), 142-152.
Yee-kwong Chan R, and Chau A. (2008). Do marketing-oriented children and youth

centres (CYCs) perform better: An exploratory study in Hong Kong. Journal of
Professional Services Marketing, 17(1), 15-28.
Young K. (2006). The Art of Youth Work. Dorset: Russell House Publishing
Young Wisdom Project of the Movement Strategy Centre. (2004). Making space, making
change: Profiles of youth-led and youth-driven organizations.
Youth Centres Canada. (2013). Youth Centres as hubs of services: The research. From
http://youthcentrescanada.com/projects-and-reports/youth-centres-as-hubs-of-youth-
services/the-research/
Zeijl E, te Poel Y, du Bois-Reymond, M Ravesloot, J, and Meulman J J. (2003). The role

of parents and peers in the leisure activities of young adolescents. Journal of Leisure
Research, 32(3), 281-303.
Zimmerman K. (2007). Making space, making change: Models for youth-led social
change organizations. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(2), 298-314.

Appendix 1 - Terms of reference and membership of the
Advisory Group
Background
In 2010, the Kāpiti Coast Youth Survey captured the views of over 10% of our youth
population. The findings showed that, while young people generally feel connected with
their community, they are frustrated by lack of activities and spaces for youth in the
District.
After the survey the Youth Council and the Council developed the Youth2U Youth Action
Plan that included Goal 3: a District which has youth friendly spaces and places, with the
aim to investigate the development of youth centres in the district.
In response to Youth Council representation and initial investigations by the Youth
Council, the Council has approved the development of a youth centre in the 2012-32
Long Term Plan. It includes capital funding of $650,000 in year 2014/15 with six months
of debt servicing costs of $19,000 and $193,000 for annual operating costs. The full text
from the Long Term Plan is at Attachment 1.
Purpose of the initiative

The purpose 7 of this initiative is to provide open access space or spaces where young
people have the opportunity to:
This initiative is not intended to provide formal training or health and social services for
young people nor duplicate existing youth services. However it is important that this
initiative links in closely with the community and existing services.
What is a youth centre?

In the Long Term Plan the focus is on establishing a youth centre, described by the
Ministry of Youth Development as follows:
Youth centres provide open access or a universal service for all young
people as opposed to a targeted service/ programme for a few young
people. At minimum youth centres have a physical space in a fixed
geographic location that youth can use.
7
This purpose is underpinned by the principles of the government’s national Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa.
Youth development means growing and developing the skills and attitudes young people need to take part in society, now
and in the future. Youth development is supporting young people to achieve their potential. It includes young people
gaining a:
 sense of contributing something of value to society
 feeling of connectedness to others and to society
 belief that they have choices about their future
 feeling of being positive and comfortable with their own identity.

Youth centres provide opportunities for young people to develop their physical, social,
emotional, and cognitive abilities and to experience achievement, leadership, enjoyment,
friendship, and recognition.
Feasibility
To progress this initiative as part of the Long Term Plan, the Council is undertaking a
feasibility study that will examine options in relation to the purpose including the
establishment, location, operation, management and funding of a youth centre. This will
be done within the context of existing youth services and existing organised activities for
young people such as those provided by clubs or churches.
The feasibility study is scheduled to be undertaken in the 2012/13 Financial Year.
Preferred options will be reported back to the Council before June 2013. The Council
has applied to Lotteries for funding for the study. The outcome of the application will be
known in November 2011. Council staff have already commenced work on the feasibility
study.
This initiative is of interest to a wide range of people and groups in the community and it
will be important to keep them informed of progress on a regular basis.
Purpose of the group

The Advisory Group has been established for the following purposes:
1. to provide advice that will assist the Council to make decisions about the
establishment of a youth centre (as per the 2012-32 Long Term Plan); and
2. to provide advice on stakeholder engagement about the initiative.
Scope of the group:

The Advisory Group will have the responsibility to provide advice on:
 the brief developed for the feasibility study 8 . This study will examine the range of
options that meet the purpose of the initiative as outlined above and will include
location/s, building/s, functions, range of activities, relationships with existing
services and agencies, funding, delivery, operation, staffing and management;
 the findings and recommendations of the feasibility study including preferred
option/s; and
 a stakeholder management plan and communication plan for the project.
The Advisory Group will be provided with technical support to review and consider the
scope and findings of the feasibility study. This may include the provision of external
expert advice.
8
Note that a feasibility study brief has already been submitted as part of the Lotteries funding application. This does not
constitute the full brief as referred to in this Terms of Reference but forms the basis for that brief

Term
The Advisory Group will operate until June 2013. Continuation will then be reviewed.
Advisory Group members are appointed at the Council’s discretion.
Membership
The Advisory group will be made up of representatives from:
 the Council
 the Youth Council
 iwi
 the community focusing on individuals with an interest in young people in the District
and covering expertise in youth development, communications and marketing,
project management, community sector .
The Youth Centre Advisory Committee is chaired by Tony Kane (Principal, Kapiti
College) and attended by the Mayor Jenny Rowan, Councillor Penny Gaylor and Youth
Council members. Other members of the group are; Jeremy Neeve (Youth Quest), Jan
Bolwell (Arts and Dance representative), Sharon Gilman (Deputy Principal,
Paraparaumu College), Mike Tahere (Police), Lawrence Kirby (Kapiti Impact Trust and
Paraparaumu Family Church), Jennie Gutry (communications specialist).
Procedures
The Advisory Group will meet as necessary up to June 2013.
The Chair will be appointed from within the Group.
The Group will provide a written report to the Council in response to the feasibility study
recommendations. The report can provide a range of advice from members.
Any decisions on how the initiative is progressed rests with the Council.
The Council will:
 provide all secretariat support to the Group including organisation of agenda and
minutes;
 reimburse Group members’ travel costs arising from participation in the Group; and
 provide project management support to advance necessary technical work and
follow-up between meetings actions.
Minutes from the group will be provided to the Council’s Senior Leadership Team.
Verbal updates from the Group will be provided to the Council’s Environment and
Community Development Committee by the Council representatives on the Group.

ATTACHMENT 1: Extract from Kāpiti Coast District Council’s 2012-32 Long Term
Plan (p162)
Supporting Social Wellbeing Activity: Youth Centre
In 2010, the Kāpiti Coast Youth Survey captured the views of over 10% of our youth
population. The findings showed that, while young people generally feel connected with
their community, they are frustrated by lack of activities and spaces for youth in the
District. In response to this the Kāpiti Coast Youth Council has investigated the need for
a youth centre.
Young people and communities need safe and successful places for youth to gather and
be themselves. Most urban communities in New Zealand have a community youth
centre. On the Kāpiti Coast young people do not have many options for places they can
call their own outside of organised clubs.
The focus of a youth centre would be recreation, youth participation, informal training
and skill development opportunities and youth development. Young people also need
help to make a satisfactory transition to adult life. Youth workers are the key to a
successful youth centre. They provide a different way for young people to get support
and services which can help them.
The Kāpiti Coast Youth Council has identified Paraparaumu as a good location for a
youth centre – somewhere near the railway station for good access. It could provide:
 events where young people can express themselves through music and
performance;
 informal social recreation;
 café to socialise and train (for example, barista, management);
 workshops to develop their skills and talents in a range of areas;
 space where young musicians can rehearse and access equipment at low cost;
 computer area for internet access and homework clubs;
 youth leadership and involvement in the management and operation of the centre;
and
 referrals to youth health and social services where needed.
A youth centre in Paraparaumu could serve the communities to the south and north to
Waikanae, however there is a need to consider a youth centre service in Ōtaki. This
would be investigated separately to ensure it met the unique needs of youth in Ōtaki.
The development of a central youth centre in Paraparaumu requires funding for the initial
establishment and ongoing operational funding. Councils commonly fund initial setups
and provide operational funding to ensure sustainability.
Discussions have begun in the community about the establishment of a charitable trust
to drive this initiative. This model allows funding to be accessed from areas which
Council cannot access. This includes government and philanthropic funding,
sponsorships and partnerships with agencies and private sector industries, government
and in-kind donations from local businesses. In the Long Term Plan the Youth Centre
has been brought forward from 2022/23 to 2014/15 (year 3). Provision has been made
for a capital cost of $650,000 with six months of debt servicing costs of $19,000 and
$193,000 for annual operating costs.

Appendix 2 - Feasibility study brief
The Kāpiti Coast District Council in partnership with the Kāpiti Coast Youth Council has
identified the need for a youth centre in the south of District.
The aim of the feasibility study is to investigate options, including a single space youth
centre which could meet the purpose of the initiative.
The purpose of the initiative is to provide open access space or spaces where young
people in the south of the District have the opportunity to:
The feasibility study will examine a range of options that meet the purpose of the
initiative as outlined above. The study includes a profile of young people in the
designated area, current provision of services, gaps, barriers and opportunities, models
of good practice in youth work, youth development and youth centres and community
and youth consultation. It will also investigate potential location/s, building/s, functions,
range of activities, relationships with existing services and agencies, funding, delivery,
operation, staffing and management.
The final feasibility study will be delivered to the Council in June 2013.
The study will provide at least three options which meet the purpose of the initiative. It
will compare a single location youth centre option with other options, assess the options
against the criteria and make recommendations on a preferred option for the initiative.
Background
Choosing Futures: the community's vision for the Kāpiti Coast District
describes the seven outcome areas the community has developed. These include:
 Community Outcome Six - the District is a place that works for young people and
 Community Outcome Seven - the District has a strong, healthy, safe and involved
community.
The Kāpiti Coast District Council recognised the need for youth space by $1 million
capital budget in the including in the 2009 Community Plan for the development of a
youth hub in 2022-2024.
The Kāpiti Coast District Council and the Kāpiti Coast Youth Council have been
investigating the need for youth friendly spaces in the District in conjunction with youth
development opportunities. The need for these was identified in the 2010 Youth Survey
undertaken by the Youth Council with support from the Council and the Boys and Girls
Institute.

The Youth Council has undertaken initial research on what a youth centre is and what it
can do by examining other youth centre models in the lower North Island including in
Wellington City, Hutt City, Palmerston North and Horowhenua. They have developed a
concept for the youth centre and have promoted this with the Council and the
community. In particular they have used the Council’s Long Term Plan consultation
process to raise awareness in the community of youth needs, promote the youth centre
concept and foster community support.
Through the 2012 Long Term Plan deliberations the Council decided to bring forward the
development of youth centre from 2022 to 2015/16. The 2012 Long Term Plan provides
for $650,000 capital funding in 2014/15 and operational funding to cover the cost of
capital and operating costs for the out years.
In addition the Youth Council and community members have been investigating the
establishment of a youth development trust that could potentially manage and operate
the youth centre.
A community advisory group to the Council on the Youth Centre recommended

broadening the scope of the initiative to allow for consideration of other options than a
single space youth centre in the feasibility study. All options developed will meet the
purpose of the initiative as set out in this brief.
Purpose of the Feasibility Study
The feasibility study will provide Council with the information necessary to decide the
model which best fits the purpose of the initiative.
The feasibility study will address the following:
 What are the social, recreational and broad educational opportunities,

programmes, services and initiatives in the District for young people? How can
this initiative strengthen this? What are the gaps and barriers? What are the
opportunities?
 What can we learn from other communities and from overseas about youth
centre and youth projects which meet the purpose of our initiative?
 What are the most effective options for our community? How do the options meet
the criteria of the initiative? What is the best option for our community? How
does a single location youth centre compare with other options? Is a single
location youth centre feasible for the designated area (Paekākāriki – Waikanae)?
Youth Initiative Criteria
Each option will be assessed on the following criteria:
 grounded in youth development principles and a youth development approach;

 be open to all young people aged 13 – 21 years of age;
 cater to young people from Waikanae to Paekakariki ;

 provide open access space or spaces where young people feel ownership where
they can undertake their own social, recreational and educational pursuits;
 provide opportunities for structured and unstructured activities for young people;
 be accessible in terms of physical accessibility, affordability and youth friendly for
a diverse range of youth cultures;
 be culturally inclusive;
 provide youth worker support for young people;
 not duplicate existing services for young people;
 be connected to the community and other youth services;
 reflect the Council’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations; and
 be cost effective and sustainable.
Key Components of the Study
The study will comprise of:
 A profile of young people:
o picture of general population (comparative);

o picture of young people in the designated area (comparative);
o wellbeing status of young people; and
o Youth Survey 2010 results.
 Best practice guidelines in youth work and youth development:
o best practice in youth work;

o youth development principles and best practice;
o elements of successful youth centres; and
o elements of successful youth development programmes.
 Current provision and use of services and spaces for young people:
o snapshot of existing recreation and social programmes and services;

o snapshot of youth development programmes for young people;
o barriers, issues and gaps in services and spaces for young people;
o linkages and opportunities;
o young people’s access of recreational, social and youth development
opportunities on the Kāpiti Coast; and
o young people’s thoughts on their social and recreation needs.
 Scan of national and international models:
o snapshot of youth centres and relevant youth development initiatives

nationwide;
o investigation of successful youth centres and relevant youth development
initiatives in the Wellington region;
o investigation of youth centres in communities of comparative
demographics/ population to the Kāpiti Coast;
o investigation into previous failed models – local and national; and

o investigation into successful models of youth work provision.
 Stakeholder engagement:
o community thoughts on the initiative;

o young people’s thoughts on the initiative;
o Long Term Plan submissions on the youth centre; and
o Māori community thoughts on the initiative.
2) The study will make recommendations for Council to consider on options for the
initiative. Each option developed will include:
o a description of the model;
o the strengths and benefits of the model;
o the weaknesses/ risks of the model and how these could be managed;
o how the model meets the criteria for the initiative;
o how the model responds to findings of the feasibility study (profile,
lessons learnt from other researched models, youth development best
practice, etc.);
o broad specifications for the model including functions, spaces, staffing
and fit out/equipment with estimated costs;
o a profile of potential users and usage rates;
o concepts for delivery of model including preferred locations, development,
fit-out and operating costs;
o considerations for management and operation of the model; and
o young people’s thoughts on the option.
3) The study will compare a single location youth centre option with other options and
make recommendations on a preferred option for the initiative. The recommendation will
be based on:
 the option which best meets the criteria;

 the strengths and benefits of the option;
 the weaknesses/ risks of the option and the ability to manage those risks;
 the support from young people for the option; and
 the cost effectiveness and predicted sustainability of the option.

Appendix 3 - A profile of young people in Kāpiti
Developed in May 2013
Introduction
About the profile
In 2012, the Kāpiti Coast District Council approved the development of a local youth
centre. This profile has been developed as a component of the youth centre feasibility
study.
The profile uses statistical information, both nationally and locally, to compare the Kāpiti
Coast to the rest of the country. Local information and experiences of young people
captured in the 2010 Kāpiti Coast Youth Survey are also used to help inform the profile.
What is inside the scope?
The paper presents the geographic, demographic, social

and economic characteristics of the communities that will be The foundation to positive youth
development is promoting a sense
serviced by the proposed youth centre. There are youth of safety, creating supportive
development principles that guide the philosophy and relationships, providing
approach of the project. The findings in this paper are opportunities to belong, providing
intended to add knowledge about young people in the positive social norms and
context of effective youth development. opportunities for skill building.
Geography and
topography of
communities
within the
District
An overview of Demographics:
the impacts of Understanding
public policy on trends on ethnic
young people diversity and
living in Kāpiti. Building a population
profile of young
people
A brief look at Examining the

education and social and
learning economic
institutions in characteristics of
the Kāpiti South young people

For the purpose of this profile ‘Kāpiti South’ is used to describe the area units of
Paekākāriki, Raumati South, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu, Otaihanga, Waikanae and
Peka Peka. ‘Kāpiti North’ describes the areas of Te Horo, Ōtaki and Ōtaki Forks.
What is outside of the scope?

This profile doesn’t include the following:
 criminal justice and apprehensions data.
 truancy, stand downs and expulsions rates.
 health outcome indicators such as teen mother birth rates, cigarette smoking and
preventable death rates.
 alcohol consumption and drug misuse.
The geography and landscape of the Kāpiti Coast District
The Kāpiti Coast is a district that spans across 40 kilometres of coastline and covers 731
square kilometres. The Kāpiti Coast is a vista of beaches, native forest and hills with a
combination of semi rural and urban living areas.
Paekākāriki is the southern gateway to the Kāpiti Coast and is about a 40 minute
commute to/from the capital, Wellington. At the northern end of the District, Ōtaki is
about a 50 minute commute to/from the city of Palmerston North. Both places play a
significant part in influencing the mobility of the District’s population as both are hubs for
employment and tertiary education.
Paraparaumu is the District’s administrative and commercial centre and provides a focal
point for young people living in the southern part of Kāpiti 9 . Public transport services
(bus and rail) are available throughout this part of the District, although it is limited in
some areas.
Ōtaki is the most northern township of the Kāpiti Coast District. This community has its
own special character which is influenced by its unique cultural and economic diversity.
There is very limited public transport connection with Paraparaumu.
For rural parts of Kāpiti, in most cases, there is no public transport available and
connectivity between townships requires travelling on State Highway One, greatly
restricting active modes of transport like, walking, skating or cycling.
Young people’s thoughts on transport

In 2010 a Youth Survey was carried out by the Kāpiti Coast Youth Council that
captured the thoughts, opinions and experiences of young people living in District 10 . The
survey identified some important themes of which, transport around the District was
highlighted:
9
Southern part of the District includes the areas of Paekākāriki, Raumati, Paraparaumu, Otaihanga, Waikanae and Peka
Peka
10
763 or 10% of young people completed the Kāpiti Coast Youth Survey

Source: Kāpiti Coast Youth Survey by the 2010 Kāpiti Coast Youth Council
With the support of the Wellington Boys’ and Girls’ Institute (BGI) and Kāpiti Coast District Council.
Demographics of the Kāpiti Coast
Who makes up the population of the Kāpiti Coast
The 2006 census data provides the most recent demographic information of the Kāpiti
population. The Kāpiti Coast has the highest proportion of people aged over 60 in all of
New Zealand, about 29% - Figure 1. This greatly effects the median age of the Kāpiti
Coast population. The median age is 44 years compared with 36 years for New
Zealand,
Figure 1
Age distribution, 2006:
Percent of All New Zealand and Kāpiti Coast District
resident population
25
All New Zealand
20 Kāpiti Coast District
15
10
0
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75 and over
Age group (years)
Source: Statistics New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006
Young people in Kāpiti
Young people, for this profile, are defined as people aged a 12 to 24 years. For this
District, about 14% of all residents are young people. This is slightly lower than the
nationally (19%). Young people make up 13.8% of the total population in Kāpiti as a
whole as well as in the south of the District (Table 1).

Table 1 – Young people 12 – 24 in Kāpiti 2006
Kāpiti Kāpiti South*
12 to 14 years 1,998 1,650
15 to 19 years 2,772 2,319
20 to 24 years 1,611 1,341
Total 6,381 5,310
% of total population for that area 13.8% 13.8%
The largest proportion of young people in the District is between 12–17 years (62% or
3,885). This group is most likely to be attending a local secondary school and remaining
in the area. For a majority of young people, early adulthood is often a time of change, for
those over 18 may leave the area in pursuit of higher education, employment or a
transition into parenthood.
There were only 267 24 year olds living in the Kāpiti District in 2006 (approximately 4%
of all young people and 0.5% of the total population).
How ethnically diverse is Kāpiti?
Ethnic diversity and multiculturalism does more than promote acceptance and
inclusiveness, it can influence the types of services delivered within a community. It also
assists Government departments and other organisations to monitor social and
economic implications of their policies on particular groups.
Overall, the Kāpiti Coast in not as ethnically diverse as the rest of the country. At the
time of the 2006 population census, Kāpiti was home to 46,400 people; 80% of these
residents identified as being New Zealand European. This is much higher than the
national average of 68%. Only 12% (or 5,500 people) identified themselves as Māori
and just 2% (about 900 people) identified themselves as either Asian or Pasifika
peoples 11 . However the picture is quite different for young people. This is explored in
more detail in the following section.
Of all the communities in Kāpiti, Ōtaki was the most ethnically and culturally diverse,
followed by Paraparaumu central. Both communities also have the highest population of
Asian people and Pasifika peoples.
Ethnicity and young people
Young people living in Kāpiti were more likely to identify with a greater range of
ethnicities than other age groups in the District. Kāpiti’s young people were still not as
ethnically diverse as the national average, but had a slightly higher percentage who
identified as Māori than the national average.
11
The 2006 census data showed that approximately 13% of residents in Kāpiti identified as New Zealanders

Figure 2
Ethni ci ty for a ges 12 to 24
Kāpi ti Coas t Nati onal Average
90%
80%
70%
percentages
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
European Māori Pas i fi ka As i an Other
ethni ci ty
Population census data showed around 22% of young people aged 12–24 years in
Kāpiti identified themselves as being of Māori descent. 84% identified themselves as
European/Pākehā, while nearly 4% were Pasifika peoples. A small proportion of 3.7%
did not state their ethnicity.
Table 2
European Māori Pacific Asian Other

Total 5,349 1,392 231 207 12
numbers
Percentages 83.8% 21.8% 3.6% 3.2% 0.2%
Source: Statistics New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006
It is assumed that young people who responded to the 2006 census identified as
belonging to more than one ethnic group, as totals for each ethnic group add up to more
than the overall total of young people in the District.
It is important to note that the population structures for Māori and non- Māori are vastly
different and this has implications on the wider Kāpiti Community. This is because Māori
have comparatively youthful structures as a result of high fertility rates and lower life
expectancy 12 . Figure 3 compares the age structure of Māori and non Māori.
12
2010 the Social Report, Te Pūrongo tangata

Figure 3
Distribution of Māori (left) and non-Māori (right) population, by gender, 2006 – Ministry of
Health
What will this mean for the Kāpiti community?

Māori communities will continue to have a youthful structure that will result in more Māori
young people or rangatahi living in the District. Based on the 2006 census, the needs of
an increasing rangatahi/youth population will require consideration. The challenge for
local government in the future will be balancing this need with those of other sectors of
the community, such as those of the District’s majority ageing population.
Of particular concern is the current lack of culturally appropriate services for young
people in the South of the District, in particular service delivered under kaupapa Māori
principles and practices. This was formally identified in 2006 in a local services mapping
report for the Ministry of Social Development. Since 2006, the only kaupapa Māori (local
iwi authority) social service has been disestablished.
Where do young people live in Kāpiti?

Table 3 shows the distribution of young people in each township or area in Kāpiti.
Most young people in the Kāpiti District reside in Paraparaumu central (almost 1,200 or
18%).

Table 3 – Population of young people by area 2006
TOWNSHIP/AREA Total Population Young people 12-24 years
*rural areas
Number % of total Number % of pop % of total
for area pop
Paekākāriki 1,602 3.5 231 14.4 0.5
Raumati 8,016 17.4 1,245 15.5 2.6
Paraparaumu 16,137 35.0 2,430 15.5 5.2
Otaihanga 1,110 2.4 180 16.2 0.4
Waikanae 10,230 22.2 1,014 10.0 2.1
Kaitawa* 477 1.0 81 17.0 0.1
Peka Peka* 252 0.5 33 13.0 0.1
Te Horo* 675 1.5 84 12.0 0.2
Maungakotukutuku* 816 1.8 90 11.0 0.2
Ōtaki 6,876 15.9 987 14.0 2.1
total 46,161 100.0 6,375 13.8
Paraparaumu Central is the most populated living area in the District. This census area
unit includes eastern Paraparaumu, an area known as ‘over the tracks’ that is physically
disconnected with the rest of Paraparaumu area by State Highway One and the main rail
trunk. This community has very limited bus public transport.
KEY
 Eastern Paraparaumu – ‘over
the tracks’
 State highway 1 and main rail
trunk
 Arawhata Road and Makarini
Street
Paraparaumu Central is also the most diverse area in Kāpiti South. In particular the
environs of Arawhata Road and Makarini Street have a more diverse population than
other parts of the District. When looking more closely at these areas, households are
more likely to be a mixture of families with dependant children and adults over 65 years
and be more ethnically mixed than Kāpiti as a whole. This area also has a range of more
affordable housing including a number of Housing New Zealand houses.
In Kāpiti there are about 220 Housing New Zealand houses with 108 in Paraparaumu
and Paraparaumu Beach. Over half of these are located in Paraparaumu central with a
majority located ‘over the tracks’.

What do young people think about the communities that they live in?
The 2010 Youth Survey identifies that young people want a more youth inclusive
community. The following text is taken directly from the survey and has since been a
action point for the Kāpiti Coast Youth Action Plan 2011-2015
Population projections
What will Kāpiti’s population look like in the future?
Projections are a way of forecasting the District’s population over the next 30 years.
These projections are based on the age structure of a district, life expectancy, births,
deaths and migration. While the population in Kāpiti continues to grow the growth rate
has slowed more recently.
11.1.1 In 2010, the Kāpiti Coast had a population increase of around 1.0 % (or 490). In
2011 the increase was 0.7 % (or 340 residents). The District now has the largest
proportion of older people in all of New Zealand, while neighbouring Porirua has
the largest proportion of young people.
In 2011, Statistics New Zealand estimated the population of the Kāpiti Coast as 49,400.
The District’s population is forecasted to reach 50,000 in 2016, increasing to 59,400 in
2032.
How many young people will be living on the Coast in the future?
Statistics New Zealand observes that in general, areas with a high percentage of older
people have a significant outflow of young adults. It is projected that the percentage of
young people living in the District in the future will be of a similar proportion as currently
– around 11% or 12% of the total population. In 2012 there were about 6,050 young
people living in the District. This is forecast to increase to 6,426 in the year 2021.
Figure 4 shows the proportion of young people living in the Kāpiti District according to
population projections, up to the year 2032.

Figure 4
Projected populations proportions Population

projections
70,000 2012‐ = 49,351
Projected population number
2032 = 59,373
60,000
50,000
40,000 Total population
30,000 Young people
20,000
10,000
0 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11%
2012 2016 2021 2026 2031 2032
year
These trends suggest that Kāpiti will become less attractive as a place for young people
to live, play and work in. This will have significant economic, social and cultural
implications for the Kāpiti District in the future. Attracting and retaining the energy,
enthusiasm and creativity of young people will need to be considered by local
government, iwi, employees and the community at large. Young people are the next
generation of leaders.
Social and economic wellbeing
Social and economic wellbeing is a way to describe how people in the community are
faring or managing. It mainly relates to peoples standard of living. There are some ‘big
picture’ factors that influence social and economic wellbeing of communities including the
global and domestic economy, government policy, and demographic changes
Equally, there are major local factors that influence individuals or a family’s socio
economic wellbeing including income and employment, education, housing, social
cohesion, and culture and ethnicity.
Kāpiti Coast’s Deprivation ratings

The NZDep2006 Index of Deprivation is a way of measuring deprivation in communities
comparatively to all of New Zealand. The Index is based on 9 variables 13 and rates socio-
economic deprivation by decile levels 1 to 10 (I being the least deprived and 10 being
most deprived).
Figure 5 shows the 2006 deprivation profile of the District. About 8% of the population live
in the most socio-economic deprived living environments in New Zealand (deciles 9 and
10). Although poverty and hardship may not be obvious in this District, it is estimated that
13
2006 NZ Dep Index of Deprivation variables include 18-64 years receiving means tested benefit, households with
equalised income below threshold; not living in own home, single parent family, unemployed, lack of qualifications, below
bedroom occupancy threshold, access to phone and car.

about 15% of all the District’s households are experiencing some type of hardship 14 . This
is based on income, tenure and number of dependants living in a household. The Ministry
of Youth Development has used census data to estimate 17.5% of the Kāpiti District’s 15-
24 year olds are in a low income household, on par with the national average.
Figure 5
Source: Ministry of Social Development
14
Assessment of Affordability Impacts April 2012, Kāpiti Coast District Council

Young people’s income and employment
Income is the single most important factor in determining social and economic wellbeing.
The interaction between employment and income can also influence living standards and
health outcomes.
It is difficult to capture the household income of young people. This is because young
people are at different life stages. Some may be getting financial support from their
parents or caregivers, while others will be living independently.
In 2006 over half (52%) of Kāpiti Coast’s young people aged 15-24 were in some form of
employment. This equates to about 1,300 (or 47%) of young people aged 15-19 years
and 1,000 (or 62%) of 20-24 year olds.
Unsurprisingly 15–19 year olds were over represented in $1-$10,000 personal income
bracket as this age group was more likely to work on a part time basis. The majority of
20-24 year olds had personal incomes in the range of $20,000 to $35,000.
Figure 6
Personal income (in employment)
Number of young people
800
700
600
500
15-19 years
400
300 20-24 years
200
100
0
00
00
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
,0
,0
,0
0,
0,
5,
0,
0,
5,
0,
0,
00
15
5
-1
-3
-3
-4
-5
-2
-2
-7
1-
-1
0-
01
01
01
01
01
01
,0
01
01
01
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
10
,0
,0
.0
0
25
30
35
40
20
5,
70
15
50
Income range
Source: 2006 census data
About 30% of employed 15 -19 year olds were working in either the retail trade or
accommodation and 23% were working in food services. Construction was the next likely
industry of work (11%). For 20-24 year olds the construction industry was the highest
employment (17 %). Since 2006 the economic climate has changed significantly. A 2009
report on ‘The impact of the recession on East Coast Youth’ highlighted a number of
barriers and challenges associated with the current economic environment for young
people. These included that young people:
 had a higher uptake of Work and Income benefits than any other age group
 reported difficulties in competing in the labour market due to their age, skills and
work experience
 reported instances of employer prejudices towards them, when laying off and
recruiting, due to perceived ability to bounce back and the perception that young
people don’t have the work ethic

 had moved back ‘home’ to save costs
 were not maximising their skills and potential
It is unknown to what extent the recession has had an impact on young people living in
Kāpiti. It can be assumed that the issues mentioned in the 2009 report are likely to be
similar for young people throughout New Zealand including Kāpiti.
Young people and income support

Types and levels of benefits can often be used to identify different types of financial
stresses households are experiencing and gauge a particular household’s ability to cope
with adverse changes in circumstances.
According to the Kāpiti Coast District Community Profile 15 , at the end of July 2011
around 20 young people living in Kāpiti under the age of 18 years were receiving some
form of income support or supplementary benefit; half were in receipt of the Invalids
Benefit.
Information from Work and Income New Zealand shows that in May 2012 649 young
people were in receipt of some form of government income support – Table 5.
Table 5 – Young people on income support Kāpiti

Domestic Invalids Non Sickness Unemployment Other Total
Purposes Benefit Beneficiary Benefit Benefit
Benefit -sole support
parent
225 85 55 67 172 45 649
Tenure of households that young people live in
Figure 7 shows percentages of Kāpiti households with youngest child/ren aged 12-17
years in each tenure category renting, own home with a mortgage, own home with no
mortgage.
Most (62% or 3,033) households with young people (youngest children) aged between
12 and 17 years owned their home with a mortgage, 21% (1,023) of households rented
and 17% (810 households) owned their home with no mortgage. Type of tenure can
reduce or enhance a household’s degree of financial risk and stability. For example
households that own the dwelling they are living in are less likely to move around.
15
November 2011, Kāpiti Coast District Community Profile, for the Community Response Model Forum

Figure 7
Tenure of households with youngest aged 12-17 years
21%
Own home with mortgage

Own home no mortgage
Rent
17% 62%
Where does homelessness fit in?

Research both nationally and internationally has identified the social issue of youth
homelessness 16 . A number of factors have been identified as forerunners to
homelessness, these include unemployment, lack of affordable housing, conflict with
family, tenuous living conditions, attitudes towards vulnerable groups, crisis intervention
and addictions/substance abuse. These adverse factors have been identified as having
disproportionate impacts on young people.
Even though someone has a roof over their heads they can still be homeless. In Kāpiti,
there are very few cases of absolute homelessness or people sleeping rough out on the
streets. There are no accurate statistics to measure the extent of youth homelessness as
they tend to be mobile and are not always visible to services, but cases of informal living
arrangements such as ‘couch surfing’ are anecdotally reported. This is backed up by the
2006 Local Services Mapping Report 17 for Kāpiti that identified emergency housing as a
priority community concern, in particular emergency housing for at risk young people.
Marital status of young people
In 2006, 530 young people living in the Kāpiti Coast were in a relationship of some kind.
Very few were married. Only 6 young people aged 15 -19 and nearly 100 20-24 year
olds were recorded as married. The number living in a de-facto relationship (living
together as a couple) was significantly higher. Just over 100 15-19 year olds and 300
20-24 year olds recorded their partnership as de facto. A very small group of 15-19 year
olds and 20-24 year olds (15 and 12 respectively) defined their relationships as a civil
union partnership or not further defined.
16
Emergency Accommodation Scope in Porirua City, 2009, Christine Ben-Tovim
17
Ministry of Social Development carried out a Local Services Mapping report of Kāpiti

Profile of secondary schools in Kāpiti
In 2006 there were approximately 3,300 secondary school aged children (13-17) living in
the District. There are two co-education secondary schools that cater for years 9 to 13.
Both these schools feature in the Wellington region’s top ten of largest student
enrolment numbers for 2012. Paraparaumu College is rated as the 5th largest secondary
school while Kāpiti College is in 8th place.
At the northern end of the District, Ōtaki has a co-education secondary school that caters
for year 7 to 13. There are also two co-education state Māori immersion schools. Both
kura accommodate student levels from year 1 through to 13. The two kura have strong
links to the three iwi of the District. Teachings are in te reo Māori and based on tikanga
and traditional Māori values unique to this area.
The following table provides an overview of secondary schools in the District.
School Decile Roll Ethnic Years Special

rating numbers composition features
Kāpiti College 8 1,102 74% NZ Pākehā 9-13 A learning
urban
17% Māori
marae is
Raumati Beach 9% other ethnic located at
the College
groups
Paraparaumu 8 1,257 82% NZ Pākehā 9-13 The

College District’s
12% Māori
largest
4% Asian secondary
Paraparaumu school
2% Pasifika
Ōtaki College 4 428 44% Māori 7-13 Middle

school and
43%NZ Pākehā
secondary
Ōtaki 6% Pasifika school
Te Kura-a-iwi o 3 140 100% Māori 1-13 Māori

Whakatupuran immersion
ga Rua Mano education
Ōtaki
Te Kura 3 56 100% Māori 1-13 Māori

Kaupapa Māori immersion
o Te Rito education
Ōtaki

Decile ratings are used for all schools in the country and measure the extent to which the
school draws its students from low socio economic communities (1 being the most socio
economically deprived and 10 being the least). This rating determines funding and
services.
A small number of young people travel out of the District to attend school, though the
exact number is unknown. This can be influenced by academic, sporting or religious and
cultural features associated with a particular school. There is no single sex or boarding
schools in the Kāpiti District. Reikorangi College was the District’s only private composite
secondary school and this closed in December 2009.
Other forms of education are available for young people in the District that have
particular learning requirements, these include:
 Kapi Mana school specialises in special education for young people aged 5 -21
years. The school has a satellite classroom based at Raumati Beach School.
This school is specifically for young people with intellectual, physical, emotional
and behavioural challenges.
 He Haurahi Tamariki, teen parent unit for mothers –is an education institution for
teen mothers to resume their secondary education. This school is located in
Tawa and available to all young parents in the area - onsite child care is available
as well as extra support.
Paraparaumu College
Paraparaumu College is the District’s newest secondary school, opening its doors in
1977. The College has the largest enrollment numbers in the District and is placed the
fifth largest College (enrolment numbers) in the wider Wellington region, behind Hutt
Valley High School, Wellington, Tawa and Wellington Girls Colleges.
Paraparaumu College Students compare well to the national standards of achievement

for NCEA levels. At the end of 2011 Paraparaumu had an 80% and over achievement
rate. In 2011, approximately 1300 Paraparaumu College students achieved a NCEA
level 1, 2 or 3 18 .
Kāpiti College
Kāpiti College first opened in 1954 as Raumati District High school. In 1957 the school
changed to its current name. The college has no zoning restrictions and draws students
from communities as far south as Porirua and Paremata, placing the College as 8th
largest (enrolment numbers) secondary school in the Wellington Region.
The College boasts a number of extra facilities including a college Marae with a
functioning whare kai and whare nui (dinning room and meeting house). The new indoor
gymnasium is also a significant facility as it is the only seated gym in Kāpiti South. Other
extras include film, sound and dance studios.
18
Source: New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2011 Roll based NCEA achievement percentages

Kāpiti College’s roll based results for NCEA levels achievement (in 2011) was well above
the national average. These results meant the College gained one of the top
achievement rates in the Wellington region. In 2011 approximately 1000 students had
gained an NCEA level 1, 2 or 3.
Ōtaki College
Ōtaki College is the only middle school and secondary school in the District. The co-
education state school caters for years 7-13. All primary schools in the Ōtaki community
end at year 6 to accommodate the transition to middle school at Ōtaki College.
The College is the most ethnically and culturally diverse College in the District as the
enrollment numbers strongly reflect the demographics of the Ōtaki community. Of the
nearly 500 students enrolled at the College 44% are Māori, 43% are Pākehā and 6% are
Pasifika. The Education Review Office’s report in 2010 stated that at Ōtaki College
Māori students remain at school longer and are well supported by whanau and the wider
community.
At the end of 2011 over 250 students gained an NCEA level. Māori students achieve
better than Māori at comparative schools in NCEA level 1 and 2.
Immersion education
Ōtaki also has two other schools that cater for secondary aged students. Both schools
are state co-education immersion education units known as kura, where lessons are
taught in te reo Māori and founded in traditional Māori values. Minimal teachings are in
English and only available to senior students. This is to assist with kura students’
transition into mainstream tertiary education.
Although the kura in Ōtaki have very few secondary aged students when compared to
other mainstream secondary schools in the District, all 12 students at Te Kura Kaupapa
o te Rito passed NCEA levels 1,2 or3. This meant the kura had a 100% achievement
rate. Te Kura-a-iwi o Whakatupuranga Rua Mano had 29 students gain an NCEA level in
2011.
Other education establishments

Skills training and tertiary providers are available to young people on the Kāpiti Coast.
Most training providers in Kāpiti subscribe to the ‘Youth Guarantee’ programme, this
scheme is available to school leavers aged 15-17 years who often have not gained
NCEA level 1 or 2. The programme is fully funded by the Tertiary Education
Commission.
Whitireia Polytechnic, Kāpiti campus offers a range of courses including outdoor

education, professional cookery, beauty and hair dressing, office administration and
computing and carpentry. The polytechnic also offers free one-year fulltime courses for
school leavers aged 16-17. It offers a larger range of courses at its parent campus in
Porirua. Studies there include; a certificate in DJ music, live sound and event
production, Wakaama and Māori nursing.
Kāpiti Skills is a provider that offers training for work. It provides a 13 week course for
Work and Income clients with the purpose of obtaining sustainable employment.
Courses are free and offer job placement and workplace experience. Free youth training
is also available for school leavers aged 15-17. For these young people the courses

provide the opportunity to gain NCEA level1 and National Certificate in Employment
skills level 1.
Trade and Commerce Wellington (Kāpiti) is a private provider that specialises in skills for
work. Participants have the opportunity to gain a Certificate of Achievement in
computing, retail, office administration, reception, sales and warehousing.
Te Wananga o Raukawa in Ōtaki is a Māori University of learning that offers tertiary

education at certificate, diploma and under and post graduate levels. Courses are
founded on traditional Māori values and tikanga. Courses range from Māori arts and
design to social work and sport and exercise science.
Public policy and the affects on young people
This section takes a brief look at other factors that impact the financial and education
attainment of young people, ultimately affecting life chances and overall social and
economic wellbeing.
New Zealand’s recent social and economic reforms have had a major impact on
families’, in particular young people. The global financial crisis has had significant part to
play in the Government’s approach to fiscal efficiency. The result has been a decrease in
youth employment training and support funding. Locally there have been a number of
impacts that have included the disestablishment of alternative educator Youth 2Xcel. On
the flip side the Government has increased its spend on tertiary institutions. However,
Māori and Pasifika young peoples’ participation in tertiary institutions are very low
compared to other ethnic groups.
Social welfare reform

In 2011, a welfare reform was announced, with the objective to address long term
welfare dependency over the next three years. The overhaul will see some considerable
changes. The most significant changes will be unemployment benefits limited to one
year, an increase of earning threshold for Domestic Purpose Beneficiaries (from $80-
$100 per week), cuts to benefits, tightening criteria, introducing payment cards and the
expectations of employment for single parents with older children (over six).
Changes in Employment law

In April 2012, an increase in the adult minimum wage was introduced - an increase of 50
cents (from $13.00 the year before) to $13.50 per hour. This equates to $108 for an
eight hour day or $540 (gross) for a 40 hour week. This hourly rate applies to anyone
over the age of 16 years. For young people over the age of 16 who are doing recognised
industry training involving at least 60 credits the hourly rate is $10.80.
The 90 day probation period was introduced in 2010, which allows employees to be
dismissed without the right to claim unfair dismissal during the trial period. The law
covers businesses with 19 or fewer employers. This law is likely to have the most impact
on those young people who are leaving school and entering the workforce for the first
time.

What has this meant for local young people?
A recent report 19 has cited that young people aged between 15 and 19 have borne the
brunt of the recession and tightening of the job market. Locally the unemployment rate
for young people aged 15-24 is about 393 or 13.5%. This is slightly higher than the
national average of 13.3%. The Ministry of Youth Development regional facts and stats
webpage shows that 11.9% of young people living on the Kāpiti Coast relied on income
support from a Government benefit. This percentage was significantly higher than the
national average of 8.1%.
19
2012, Salvation Army,The growing divide - a state of the nation report

Kāpiti young people statistics at a glance
Other facts Area of interest Youth Kāpiti National

There are a number of aspects Indicator Coast Average
that influence the way in which
we live our lives. Social, cultural,
Population Number of 6,381 N/A
economic and the physical people
environment are the greatest Percentage of 14% 19%
influences on circumstance,
population
ultimately impacting on:
 education; Education Percentage of 55% 61%
 employment and income; young people
 health status; still at school at
 living standards; and age 17
 housing conditions.
Rate of school 55% 63%
Poor social and economic leavers
circumstances present the enrolled in
greatest threat to a child’s tertiary
growth and development. education
Parental poverty starts a chain
reaction of social risk – that Percentage of 60% 62%
begins at childhood and can lead school leavers
to low education attainment and with NCEA
in the end a pattern of level 2 (or
unemployment and poor job above)
security.
Secondary 6% 5%
A healthy society involves students
reducing educational failure and leaving with
reducing the disparity of income little or no
differences. A strong and healthy
formal
community enables all citizens to
play a full part in social,
attainment
economic and cultural life. Ability to transition Employment 2523
into the labour rate (58%) (55%)
Alcohol dependence, illicit drug market
use and cigarette smoking are Full time 21% 21%
all closely associated with employment
markers of social and economic 15-19 31% 26%
disadvantage Part time
employment
Māori youth continue to
15-19 61% 53%
experience greater disparity in
health status, lower income
levels, higher unemployment Full time 12% 16%
and lower education than non‐ employment
Māori. 20-24
Part time
employment
20-24
Unemployment 393
rate 13.5% 13.3%
Personal Income Weekly Low Low
income income income
Mode income: households households
o 15-19
years 17.5% 17.5%
$1,000-
5,000
o 20-24
years
25,000-
30,000
Percent of 11.9% 6.8%

income from
Government
transfers

Appendix 4 - List of interviews
Local Interviews
 Aotea Community Trust
 Kapiti Skills
 Kapiti Youth Support
 Youth Quest
 Whakarongotai Marae Trust
 Paraparaumu College
 Kapiti College
 Local music industry representatives
 Trade and Commerce
 JTD Solutions Ltd
 Police
 Compass Health
 The Centre Church
 The Meadows Church
 Paraparaumu Family Church
 St Patrick’s Youth Ministry
 St Paul’s Youth Group
 The Kapiti Lighthouse
 Waikanae Baptist Church
 Coast Community Church
 St Luke’s Church
Interviews with youth centre/ youth development organisations

 Wanaka Youth Centre, Wanaka
 Rotovegas Youth Centre, Rotorua
 Tararua Community Youth Services, Dannevirke
 BGI, Wellington
 YouthSpace, Palmerston North
 Te Takere Youth Space, Levin
 Challenge 2000, Wellington
 Youthtown, Upper Hutt/ National
 Secret Level, Lower Hutt
 The Truck Youth Service, Nelson
 Zeal, Wellington
 Evolve Youth Health Service, Wellington
 Vibe, Lower Hutt
 Collusion, Upper Hutt
 The Spot Youth Centre, Masterton
 24/7 Youth work in schools, Wellington/ National
 Carterton Events Centre – Youth Space, Carterton

Appendix 5 - Summary of findings from the social and
recreational organisation survey
This survey was undertaken to find out:

 the extent of social and recreational opportunities already available for young
people aged 12 to 24 on the Kāpiti Coast through organisations and clubs; and
 how clubs engage with young people including barriers and opportunities for
young people.
The range of organisations surveyed included:

 sports
 arts and crafts
 dance, music, drama and theatre
 uniformed groups – e.g. Scouts, Girl Guides
 faith-based
 interests.
The survey was mainly undertaken on line through Survey Monkey, with some telephone
and hard copy surveys undertaken.
The survey was divided into two depending on the nature of the organisation – whether
they had more or less than 30% young people participate in the organisation’s activities.
 154 surveys sent out, 128 responses received (23 incomplete), however totals
based on 128 responses:
 organisations with more than 30% young people (12-24) who participate n=51
(41.46%); and
 organisations with less than 30% young people (12-24) who participate n=72
(58.54%).

The following tables summarises information from the survey, what this means in terms
of the initiative and possible areas for additional research.
Number of young people What does this mean? Areas for further
participating consideration
 Approximately 50% of  Identify exact
Organisations 30%+ young people
social and recreational numbers of young
participate
organisations in Kāpiti people who are
have more than 30% of involved in activities.
Type of club No. %
young people participating.
Sports 28 57.1  These organisations
Visual Arts and Crafts 5 10.2  There is a strong sporting reflect what is already
Dance/Music 12 24.5 presence in Kāpiti. available. The Youth
Drama/Musical 4 Survey may indicate if
8.2  A youth initiative has the
Theatre there are activities
opportunity to connect with
Uniformed Group (eg 6 young people want to
12.2 these groups.
Scouts/Girl Guides) be involved in that are
Church Youth Group 6 12.2  The initiative needs to not available in the
Hobby Group 2 4.1 avoid duplication. community; also if
Total Respondents: 49 these organisations
are meeting their
Organisations >30% young people needs/wants.
participate
Type of club No. %

Sports 39 70.9
Visual Arts and Crafts 0 0
Dance/Music 14 25.5
Drama/Musical Theatre 4 7.3
Uniformed Group (eg 1 1.8
Scouts/GirlGuides)
Church Youth Group 2 3.6
Hobby Group 1 1.8
Total Respondents: 55

Māori involvement: What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 60% or more of the  Currently, organisations  The Youth Survey
organisations had less than have limited numbers of may indicate what
10% Māori participants, 80% Māori engaged. This may Rangatahi are
had less than 20%. suggest that the activities interested in and/or
currently available are not involved in. It may
 Only one organisation had more
relevant to Māori young identify where they are
than 60 % Māori participation.
people or that there are engaged and why
 The Youth Profile indicates that barriers to involvement. organisations currently
21% of young people in the have small numbers of
 Consideration needs to be
Kāpiti District identify as Māori Māori involved.
given as to how the needs
(this includes Otāki).
and interests of Rangatahi
are being met and how
this relates to the youth
initiative.
Young people as participants What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 85% of organisations required  Activities tend to engage  For young people
membership or enrolment, 47% young people for a ‘long whose parents are not
allowed casual basis. duration’ (a year or more). interested in activities,
This requires a certain or the same activities
 Organisations reported young
level of commitment, as they are, may find it
people would be involved for a
support, and possibly challenging to
duration of 2 years or more. ( 3-
ability. participate and to
5 years = 65%, 2 -3 years 44%
continue their
and life time 44%.  Research, and information
engagement.
from this survey, suggests
 Involvement in the organisation:
that parental support in  What is the role of
95% became involved through
sporting and recreational parents in the youth
their friends, 84% through
activities is a significant initiative?
siblings, 79% had parents that
factor in participation.
were involved and 67%
Support can include
indicated that participants
transportation, payment of
started as a child. (Also related
fees and associated
to word of mouth – 93.8%).
costs, volunteering and
 95% of organisations noted that engagement.
their participants were dropped
 Opportunities to ‘try out
off by parents; 51% indicated
activities may be limited
young people walk, 44% said
(23 organisations allowed
young people bike or drive
for casual basis
themselves.
involvement) and trying
 Term fees range from $10 to out activities in an
$350 per term, with the average environment where others
at $60; annual fees between may have had long term
$100 to $350, averaging at engagement can be
$100. intimidating.

Why young people leave What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 71% indicated young people  ‘Change of life  The Youth Survey
leave the organisation because circumstances’ excludes explores why young
of a ‘change in life the other categories (e.g. people who have been
circumstances’, 57% suggested grow beyond our range, engaged in an activity
young people decided it wasn’t decide it’s not for them) stop.
for them and 56% noted that and may include parental
 Would the opportunity
one reason was young people divorce, change in peer
to engage with a youth
move. 29% indicated that they group, a partner, school
worker (e.g. via the
leave because their peers do. activities, etc.
initiative) be
 While some organisations beneficial?
may provide the support
young people require
during these changes, it is
not usually their role to do
so.
What may limit involvement What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 Most organisations indicated  Perhaps there are clashes  The Youth Survey
that ‘timing of activity’ was the with other activities young explores what young
biggest reason. 55% believed people are involved in people do with their
young people did not participate (such as part time work, time outside of
because the commitment was after school activities), or school/training/study
too great and 53% said cost perhaps their parents are and work.
was a factor. unable to drive them if
they are working.
 This information highlights
the need to consider how
and when a youth
initiative would operate (in
terms of timing). It also
raises the issue of how to
best engage with activities
and organisations in the
communities.

Benefits for young people/youth What does this mean? Areas for further
development consideration
 Having fun was the greatest  Included in the criteria for  The Youth Survey
benefit (94%), followed by assessing youth initiative explores the reasons
increased confidence (92%), options are the following young people are
learning skills (90%) and social points: engaged in activities
contact with other young people and what their
provide open access
(88%). The lowest benefit perceived benefits are.
space or spaces where
ranked was community
young people can feel
involvement (50%).
ownership, where they
 Pathways for development: can undertake their own
Competing (64% n=30), social, recreational and
becoming a leader (53% n= educational pursuits
25), teaching others (60% n = provide opportunities for
28) structured and
 Running of activities: 34 of the unstructured activities for
organisations stated activities young people
are run in partnership with  Some organisations may
adults and young people; 27 provide these
were run by adults; 8 had opportunities, but others
activities run by young people may need more support to
(what these models look like do so. For some
e.g. designed by adults, run by organisation, their
young people? Young people focus/purpose is on
initiated? is not clear from the competing or leadership,
current data). which may discourage
young people from
participating.
Organisations What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 73% would like to have more  The survey suggests that  How could the youth
young people participating in during December- initiative contribute to
their programmes and activities. January there are limited and involve
34% believed that the number social/recreational organisations to assist
was about right for them. activities available for in young people’s
young people to be participation (where
 Most activities are run during
engaged in. What do relevant)?
the school term (36
young people who are
organisations) and during the
usually engaged in these
school holidays (21).
activities do? What about
 The biggest drop in participation young people who are not
occurred between October and involved?
January (inclusive) with the
 What role could a youth
biggest drop in January. There
initiative have in relation
is some drop off in July/August.
to this ‘lull’ time?

Space and Place What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 16 organisations have an  Opportunities to:
owned facility where activities
Explore if those
take place. 21 organisations
organisations with their
hire or rent a space, 15 use a
own space are
community owned space (e.g.
appropriate/relevant as a
community hall/field) and 3 use
space within the youth
another organisation’s space for
initiative.
free.
Explore if organisations
 Of those who own their own who hire/rent a space
space, 8 indicated that it was would rent a ‘youth
used 80% or more of the time. friendly space’ and if so,
The other 8 was less than 50% what would their
(2 indicated less than 10%). requirements be? How
 About 1/3 would access a youth would this be perceived
friendly fee space for their by the other users of the
activities, another third said space?
‘maybe’ and just under a third  Would existing spaces
said ‘no’. provide open access
space or spaces where
young people can feel
ownership, where they
can undertake their own
social, recreational and
educational pursuits?
Cost What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 75% had no financial provision  For some activities, cost is
to assist young people in not necessarily prohibitive
meeting costs, compared with to engagement – this
56% of organisations who had information suggests that
more than 30% young people recognition of a need, and
involved who did. a willingness/ability to
support some young
 Very little difference in numbers
people to participate in
or organisations’
activities, encourages
session/membership fee/cost
engagement. This may be
and associated cost between
reflected in the underlying
the 30+ and >30.
principles of the
organisation and their
attitudes towards young
people.

Youth Events What does this mean? Areas for further
consideration
 The survey identified two youth  Would a youth initiative be  Current engagement
specific (high youth involved in more youth with young people
involvement) events held in specific events? explores events in the
Kāpiti: Youth Fest and Youth community.
Week

Appendix 6 - Youth work and youth development
The Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa (Ministry of Youth Development 2002)
provides the policy framework for a youth development approach in New Zealand. The
YDSA is based on six key principles:
 Youth development is shaped by the ‘big picture’.
 Youth development is about young people being connected.
 Youth development is based on a consistent strengths-based approach.
 Youth development happens through quality relationships.
 Youth development is triggered when young people fully participate.
 Youth development needs good information.
The Code of Ethics for Youth Work in New Zealand (Ara Taiohi 2011) is strategically
aligned with the six principles of the YDSA. Best youth work practice fits within this
framework as youth workers play a vital role in supporting young people’s positive
development.
Several models which support a youth development approach are used by youth
workers in youth centres and youth development programming in New Zealand. For the
youth initiative to work from a youth development approach aligned with a kaupapa
Māori approach, it is important that an internationally recognised model is partnered with
a Māori model. The models most commonly used in youth centres and youth
organisations working from a youth development approach across the Wellington region
are Circle of Courage (Brentro, Brokenleg, & Bockern 2002) and Whare Tapa Wha
(Mason Durie 1994).
Youth workers, in partnership with young people, seek to establish positive social
settings, warm supportive relationships, processes which facilitate the growth of young
people, opportunities which help young people to be all they can be, and to provide a
foundation for independent choice, personal autonomy and responsible behaviour.
These are settings in which adults believe in young people and where young people feel
safe, cared for, valued and appreciated. They create settings and processes that, if
managed sensitively by skilled youth workers, can lead to the positive development and
enhancement of social and emotional competence of young people.
There are distinct characteristics which sets youth work apart as different than other
forms of work with young people. These characteristics define the practice of youth work:
 young people’s voluntary participation;
 seeking to tip balances of power in young people’s favour;
 responding to expectation that youth work will offer relaxation and fun;
 responding to young people as young people in their own right;
 working on and from young people’s ‘territory’ - literally and all including interests,
subcultures, styles and concerns, etc; and
 working via peer networks (Young 2006).

Centre – based youth work
“Effective youth centres share many of the characteristics of successful youth work. In
their own right, youth centres are effective when they give young people somewhere to
go, something to do, some space of their own, someone to talk to.” (Ministry of Youth
Development 2010)
Youth development outcomes in youth centres occur through informal and non-formal
activities. That is, development takes place in conversations and unstructured
background activities, but also takes in structured programmes delivered in youth
centres. The core purpose of youth work is about supporting young people’s social and
personal development. However, the reality is that most young people become engaged
with youth work because they are attracted to a youth centre and activities or
opportunities offered there. Providing ‘sanctuary’, a safe space away from the pressures
of schooling, family and the streets is also a fundamental element of successful centre
based youth work. Initially young people are attracted by the opportunity to take part in
activities and a space to ‘hang out’. It is after this initial phase they come to realize there
is more to youth work than they first thought.
Effective youth work occurs when youth workers provide gateways to achievement for
young people via those activities, whether they are structured or unstructured. Many
youth centre managers interviewed commented that pathways for young people were
key to youth development outcomes. Their ‘drop in’ times were framed in this context as
their youth workers engage with young people hanging out to build relationships, find out
their interests, ideas and concerns and build pathways with young people from there.

Appendix 7 - Summary of findings from the youth survey
The survey was conducted as part of the feasibility study for the proposed youth
initiative. 1432 young people started the survey of which 1239 completed the survey
(87% completion – 193 not completed). Not all sections of the survey were completed by
participants (age, gender, ethnicity, residence), which has limited full cross referencing of
data. The group who undertook the survey represent approximately 26% of young
people aged 12 – 24 years in the South of the District (Census 2006).
Approximately 48% of the survey respondents were male and 52% were female. A
majority of the young people who participated in the survey were aged between 13 and
17 years.
The survey respondents comprised of:
 1227 college students (86% of the survey respondents);

 109 young people in university/polytechnic or training (UPT) (8% of the survey
respondents);
 54 young people working (4% of the survey respondents); and
 42 doing something else, like parenting (3% of the survey respondents).
The majority of respondents reside in Paraparaumu (26%), Paraparaumu Beach (25%),

Waikanae (16%) Raumati Beach (11%), Raumati South (8%), Waikanae Beach (7%),
Otaihanga (3%) and Paekākāriki (3%).
The ethnic groups represented in the survey are:

 NZ European (69%)
 Maori (14%)
 Pacific Island (4%)
 Asian (3%)
 Other (11%) (included British, South African, Australian and European).
The following table show a detailed breakdown of ages and gender of respondents.
Age and Gender of those who completed the survey
Male Female Total

Number % Number % Number %
13 years 132 23% 119 19% 251 21%
14 years 93 16% 107 17% 200 16%
15 years 140 24% 153 24% 293 24%
16 years 109 19% 118 19% 227 19%
17 years 60 10% 88 14% 148 12%
18 years 19 3% 16 3% 35 3%
19 years 13 2% 13 2% 26 2%
20 years 6 1% 6 0.5%
21 years 3 0.5% 6 1% 9 1%
22-24 years 9 1.5% 17 3% 26 2%
Total 584 637 1221
*Please note that percentages have been rounded up

Young people who are involved in organised activities such as
teams, groups and clubs
Of respondents, 65% of college students, 44% of young people at work and 37% of
young people at university, polytechnic or in training (UPT) were involved in one or more
organised activities in their spare time.
*Note that respondents could indicate more than one activity
80%
70%
60%
50% College
40% UPT
30%
20% Work
10%
0% up
ts
p
ts
er
c
a
e
ou
i
am
nc
or
or
us
th
ro
sp
gr
sp
Da
O
G
/M
Dr
rm
r
h
ts
or
oo
ut
Ar
do
ifo
Yo
td
In
Un
ou
ch
ur
Ch
Points to ponder
Outdoor and indoor sports were main organised activity that young people participated
in. The survey on social and recreational organisations (clubs survey) indicated that
organisations providing sporting activities are the largest recreational group servicing the
South of the District. The high percentage of young people involvement in sports may be
because of the number of organisations providing this activity. Conversely, high demand
may result in a high numbers of organisations.
Main reasons for participation in organised activities (ranked)

College respondents Working respondents UTP respondents
I have fun (91%) I enjoy it (87%) I enjoy it (93%)
It keeps me fit (69%) I get to meet new people It keeps me fit (64%)
(61.5%)
I learn new skills (61%) It feels good (68%) I get to hang out with my
friends (59%)
I learn new things (57%) I get to hang out with my It feels good (57%)
friends (59%)
I get to hang out with my It gives me something to do I’m good at it 55%)
friends (56%) (59%)
I’m good at it (57%) I get to meet new people

(55%)

Points to ponder
For young people at work and UPT, their activities provide them with opportunity to meet
new people and to hang out with their friends. This may be important as being in
work/UPT may have moved them from their peer group (friends may be at school, other
occupations or learning institutes), their friends may be involved in the same activities.
Having fun/ enjoyment is a key motivator for participating in activities.
For respondents in college, learning new skills and things are important aspects of being
involved in an activity. This is also important to consider when establishing a youth
initiative (that there are opportunities to provide these things).
Learning new skills and learning new things were ranked highly by 15 year old girls.
About 32% of 13 to 15 year old boys are more likely to participate in sports.
There is an approximate 30/70 split in between those who do not participate in activities
(30) and those that do (70) in the 13 – 15 year age group. The split is 40/60 (no/yes)
beyond this age. This may reflect study and/or work commitments, other responsibilities
and possibly more independence (legally able to drive).
Why respondents who already participate in an activity do not participate in more

activities (ranked):
I don’t have the time I don’t have time (46%) I don’t have the time (34%)
(51.5%)
There aren’t any clubs for Costs too much (35%) Costs too much (34%)
my hobbies and interests
(29%)
I have other responsibilities I have other responsibilities I have other responsibilities

(25%) (35%) (32%)
Costs too much (24%) There aren’t any clubs for There aren’t any clubs for
my hobbies and interests my hobbies and interests
(30%) (18%)
Points to ponder
The four categories listed were the most common reasons for not participating more in
activities.
School work, home responsibilities, employment and other regular activities may prohibit
their involvement in more organised activities.

Around 30% of respondents in the college and work category felt that there was a lack of
clubs/organisations relevant to their interests.
While this group of young people may be too busy to attend regular activities, they may
a) participate in activities relating to their interests that are not already catered for and b)
participate in one off events for young people that a youth initiative may organise.
Girls’ responses were higher for the following categories: ‘parents won’t let me’, ‘I have
other responsibilities’, and ‘I cannot afford the equipment’ (with the exception of 13 year
olds, where this was balanced – this may reflect a higher number of 13 year old males
responding to the survey).
Young people who are NOT involved in organised activities such

as teams, groups and clubs
Of respondents, 35% of college students, 56% of young people at work and 63% of
young people at university, polytechnic or in training (UPT) were not involved in any
organised activities in their spare time.
Why those respondents do NOT participate in organised activities.
There aren’t any clubs for I don’t have the time (39%) I don’t have the time (38%)
my interests and hobbies
(40%)
I don’t have the time I have other responsibilities There aren’t any clubs for
(35.2%) (38%) my interests and hobbies
(31%)
It’s not my kind of scene There aren’t any clubs for Costs too much (30%)
(26.4%) my interests and hobbies
(31%)
Costs too much (19.5%) Costs too much (22%) I have other responsibilities
(27%)
Points to ponder
Time, cost and relevance (to their hobbies/interests) are the main things that prevent
young people from participating. Over 30% of respondents in all the categories felt that
there was a lack of clubs/organisations relevant to their interests, in particular, college
students (40%).

Respondents who do NOT participate in organised activities who have gone along
to an organised activity but not continued.
Of those respondents who did not participate in organised activities, 58% of college
students, 56% of young people at work and 50% of young people at university,
polytechnic or in training (UPT) had gone along to an organised activity but had not
continued.
Their reasons for not continuing were: (ranked)
Didn’t like it much (63%) Didn’t like it much (43%) Didn’t like it much (43%)
Wasn’t my kind of scene Wasn’t my kind of scene Wasn’t my kind of scene

(26%) (29%) (21%)
I wasn’t very good at it Takes too much time (33%) Costs too much (16%)
(21%)
Takes too much time (19%) Costs too much (18.4%) Takes too much time (16%)
Points to ponder
The data suggests young people will try new things (to see if it’s them).
Cost continues to be a factor in considering involvement in activities, particularly for girls.
Young males who are not involved in activities three main reasons were: I didn’t like it
much, I wasn’t very good at it and none of my friends do it.
Girls who are not involved in activities indicated “there is no one I could relate to” more
often than other groups.
More girls (41) than boys (17) indicated: “I feel embarrassed, shy or nervous”.

Hobbies and Interests
We asked young people to write down their ‘top three hobbies and interests’.
Total responses for hobbies

Proportions for hobbies
19%
Sport & outdoor rec

39% Art (visual & Performing)
8% Gaming & computing
Reading
4%
Socialising
Other
10%
20%
‘Other’ category included movies, animals, cooking and motor vehicles. In the ‘sport’
section, some respondents just listed ‘sports’. The highest named sport was football,
followed by netball, gym and rugby. The category referred to as socialising included
hanging out with friends, youth group and social media. The survey does not indicate
which ‘hobbies’ are part of ‘organised activities’ and which are outside of these.
Things young people would like to have in the community related to their
hobbies/interests (ranked)
College
College
not Work UPT
involved
involved
Places where I can do my hobbies/ interests
62.7% 59.6% 55.1% 53.2%
with other young people
Access to free equipment to help me with my
55.7% 47.6% 42.9% 48.6%
hobbies/interests
Support from adults who know lots about my
34.6% 25.5% 16.3% 26.6%
hobbies/interests
Support from other young people who know
27.8% 20.3% 18.4% 21.1%
lots about my hobbies/interests
48.7% 49.3% 44.9% 49.5%
Free classes/workshops to try different things
Places to practice my hobbies/interests (i.e..
45.0% 31.2% 42.9% 27.5%
band practice)
Help connecting with other people with the
23.7% 24.9% 26.5% 33.9%
same hobbies/interests
I need something else (please specify) 7.5% 7.2% 14.3% 9.2%
Ranking: 1 2 3 4
*Ranking indicates which categories had the largest proportion of responses, 1 = the most and
white represents the fewest.

Points to ponder
All groups indicated that they would like places where they can do their hobbies/interests
with other young people. Having a place or places where they can be with other young
people is important to young people.
Free classes/workshops to try new things are important, as is access to free equipment
for activities. Access to free equipment was more important for young people already
participating in activities.
While not necessarily rated as a key reason why they do not participate in activities, cost
can be prohibitive to young people who want to try something new. Other comments
included access to free Wi-Fi.
Young people would like more places to practise hobbies/interests.
While there are spaces in the community that young people can utilise, these may have
costs associated with them, or may not be readily available. They may also be places
young people do not feel comfortable in, are difficult to access, or not on young people’s
‘radar’.
Young people who are working or at UPT indicated they would like help connecting with
others who have the same interests.
Connecting with others was more important for those outside of college, perhaps
reflecting a desire to expand networks beyond study/work environment.
The main places young people spend time outside of their home
Young people at college spent most time out side of their house hanging out at a mates’
house.
College
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% College
30%
20%
10%
0%
Mates’ houses Coastlands Beach or a Doing an Wellington
river organised
activity
The information in the survey shows that overall more girls spent time at Coastlands
than boys. Girls who participated in activities, 51% indicated they spend time at
Coastlands; 51% also spend time in organised activities.

More girls went to Wellington than boys in all age categories, except 13 year olds
(equal).
Mates’ houses (67%) The top four places Working and UPT respondents spent
Coastlands (48%) time at were:
Beach or a river (43%)  mate’s houses
Doing an organised activity  Coastlands
(31%)  beach or a river
Wellington (30%)  Wellington
Points to ponder
The perception that young people in Kāpiti ‘hang out’ in the mall is reflected in this
survey.
The beach or river is a popular location for young people to be (relevant to youth
initiative when considering where activities could be organised).
The survey does not explain ‘why’ young people are spending time in these places
(focus groups expand on this).
What is available for young people to ‘do’ outside of organised activities?
College aged young men (who did participated in organised activity) were most likely to
spend time at:
 mates’ houses,
 beach/river
 organised activities.
College aged young men (who did NOT participate in organised activity) were most likely
to:
 do my own thing
 mates’ houses
 get bored.

What young people do in the school holidays and their free time
(for those working)?
*(ranked)

(what do you do in the (what do you do in your (what do you do in your free
school holidays?) free time?) time?)
Spend time with my Spend time with friends Spend time with friends
friends (75%) (65%) (58%)
Do my own thing (65.5%) Do my own thing (58%) Do my own thing (58%)
Spend time with my family Spend time with family Spend time with family
(55%) (46%). (49%)
Go to Wellington quite a Go to parties (40%)

bit (37%)
Points to ponder
For all groups of young people, spending time with friends, family and doing their own
thing, are the main activities. In the school group, going to Wellington was rated highly
particularly by young women.
How young people would find out if an activity they wanted to

try was available in their area?
Data Points to ponder
Top three responses Young people at work and UPT ranked

College Work UPT look in the newspaper (46% 40%) as the
Ask friends 71% 70% 70% fourth method.
Google it 57% 54% 59%
Facebook it 42% 48% 47% College young people ranked waiting
until they heard about something (38%)
or heard about it through the school
notices (38%) above the newspaper
(25%)
A youth initiative will need to consider

the ways young people currently access
information about activities and events.
Word of mouth is the most common and
internet methods popular. The
newspaper is a useful medium for those
outside of school.

How young people feel about themselves
Young people were asked to indicate which statements related to them. Below is a table
for the college students respondents. There was limited data for the working and UTP
respondents for this section.
College aged respondents
No involvement in Involvement in
activities activities
Those Those NOT
involved in involved in
organised organised
activities activities Boys Girls Boys Girls
I like school 44.8% 29.5% 25.9% 33.3% 40.3% 49.3%
I do well at school 53.1% 39.5% 34.1% 45.0% 49.9% 56.4%
I want to go to Uni or
Polytech when I leave 55.5% 50.0% 42.9% 57.2% 47.8% 63.1%
school
I don't know what I want
to do when I leave 29.0% 28.1% 22.9% 32.8% 24.5% 32.5%
school
My parents are
69.2% 57.4% 47.6% 67.2% 62.4% 75.9%
supportive
I get lonely 10.7% 17.3% 15.9% 18.9% 7.5% 13.8%
There is no problem
paying for things for me 22.9% 19.6% 15.9% 23.3% 23.0% 23.0%
to do
I have a job 25.4% 20.5% 13.5% 27.2% 20.9% 29.5%
I know where to go to
35.2% 22.2% 18.2% 26.1% 31.3% 39.0%
get help
I don't get bored much 22.9% 11.6% 11.2% 12.2% 25.4% 20.6%
I have easy access to a
27.4% 21.9% 17.6% 26.1% 23.9% 30.9%
car to get me around
I am a confident and
42.2% 24.1% 14.7% 32.8% 35.8% 48.2%
outgoing person
I have friends 90.3% 79.0% 72.9% 85.0% 87.8% 92.4%
I like trying new things 58.5% 35.2% 28.8% 41.7% 53.7% 63.1%
After school and
weekends I am busy
56.6% 35.2% 27.6% 42.2% 52.8% 60.2%
doing things I want to
do
None of the above 1.3% 2.8% 5.9% 0.0% 1.8% 0.8%
Points to ponder
In general, those who participate in an organised activity outside of school tended to like
school and do well at it, feel their parents are supportive, have friends, like to try new
things, and feel confident and outgoing more than those college aged students who do
NOT participate in an organised activity.
At least half the respondents in each of these categories like to try new things.
Boys’ responses (both involved and not involved in activities) tended to be lower than
girls’.
Participating in activities may contribute to more positive responses in young people,

however it may also be possible that young people who are positive seek opportunities
to be involved in other things (cause and effect cannot be determined, but are related).
Researching literature on self-esteem/attitudes in young people and gender differences

may provide further insight to this (is this average/normal or particular to Kāpiti?)
Girls not involved in activities also provided more responses than boys in the same
category.
75% of respondents believe paying for things is difficult. Cost will be something to
consider in the youth initiative.
Girls who participate in activities had the highest responses to the positive statements (in
particular having friends, confidence, wanting to further their education and doing things
they want to)
If you were having a problem, is there an adult you would feel

OK talking with?
82.3% of young people at 78% of working respondents and 87% of UTP

college indicated there is an respondents indicated they have an adult they can talk
adult they feel OK talking with.
with;
The results were similar for young people at work and
Of those respondents, the the top three responses were the same as for college
adult they would talk with aged respondents.
were;
A parent/caregiver 80%
An adult family member 43%
An adult family friend 33%
A teacher 25%
A counsellor 23%
A coach 17%
A youth worker 13%

Points to ponder
This is likely to reflect whom young people have access to. Young people in the District
are unlikely to know what a youth worker is or have had experience talking with a youth
worker as there are very few youth workers in the District. Other adults such as work
colleagues were not included on the survey.

Appendix 8 - Summary of findings from focus groups
Twelve focus groups with a variety of young people aged 14 – 22 years have been
conducted as a part of the Youth Initiative Feasibility Study. The focus groups covered a
wide range of young people in terms of their age, ethnicity, gender, social groups, place
of residence (south of the District), occupation and interests (including young people
attending a training course, young mothers, college students and young people with
special needs).
Young people who participated in the focus groups (in general):
 Spend time at: the beach, Coastlands, doing organised activities, working, study,
Porirua, Wellington, their mates’ houses and youth group.
 Generally get about by walking (particularly female respondents), bike, bus/train and
some have access to cars
 Found that train/buses were costly and not always convenient
 Said good places to be included Paraparaumu Beach, Marine Gardens (young
mothers in particular, they also spent time at the Library, while other young people
did not), youth group, Coastlands, Waikanae Pools.
 Some were hopeful that the new aquatic centre would provide a space for them to
be.
 Said places where they did not feel safe/were not good to go to: walking in the
streets at night, Paraparaumu Railway station at night (it’s dark, there are people
loitering, not well lit), Kapiti Lights (because of recent history), skate park in
Waikanae, the Mall (some young people did not like Coastlands), Makarini Street,
and Ōtaki. The Track down Kāpiti Road and behind the airport) was also mentioned.
 Do not want to go where the ‘little kids’ are (those who are 12-13 and younger).
 While they liked events, did not feel events are specifically for ‘young adults’. Some
felt ‘youth events’ attracted ‘little kids’.
 Some felt that the focus in Kāpiti was more for old people (Waikanae in particular);
there was nothing provided for young people.
 Many focus group participants commented that they hang out at their mates’ houses
and Coastlands, because ‘what else is there to do?’ Things that are available are the
movies and ten-pin bowling, but these are expensive.
 Coastlands was seen to be a ‘neutral space’ (not owned/taken over by particular
groups). Some felt they could ‘hang out’ there but do not want to be where they feel
a need to buy things. There was recognition of ‘Mall rats’ (young people who hang
out at the Mall from open to closing time. They are different to older people who may
‘window shop’ for a few hours and then go home). Some viewed this negatively,
others described themselves as Mall Rats.
Point to ponder: What places/spaces are available in our community that provide young
people with a safe place to ‘hang out’ and be with other young people, that do not expect
them to be a ‘client, consumer or criminal’; and that young people feel they have
ownership over?

Feedback on youth initiative ideas
Note that some of the comments reflect young people’s interpretation of how the models
may work
a) Clubs Based Initiative
Youth Work training for

organisations
Coordination
 Good to use existing resources and opportunities to learn new things such as sport.
 Could be hard to get to different activities.
 Less collaboration among groups in the community; spread demographically and
geographically.
 One offs might be good, but have a limited life span – once a young person had
experienced something, may not go back there; some young people could not
commit to something regularly every week.
 Ongoing and associated costs prohibitive.
 No continuity (in activities)_ and also concern if an organisation had ‘trained’
someone in youth development, that person may a) be more interested in the activity
than real youth development and b) what happens if that person leaves?
 No youth ownership – activities are not youth owned or led, not necessarily
specifically for youth.
 Young people wouldn’t go to a club to meet a youth worker.
 Young people want to be in the same space as their friends – friends have different
sporting interests, so they wouldn’t necessarily all be in the same space.
 Does not address the issue of ‘space’ – this model is about activities and young
people want to have a place where they can do their own thing. A venue or space for
young people is not addressed in this model.
 Young Māori who participated in focus groups and are involved with Kapa Haka
indicated a high level of involvement is required (including regular weekend training).
 Young people who reside outside of Paraparaumu (e.g. Paekākāriki or Waikanae)
will meet in Paraparaumu (Coastlands)
Points to ponder: Young people in focus groups indicated that they would definitely be
interested in trying new activities, but felt that the Clubs idea does not address their
desire for a space they can call their own, to do activities they want to do and initiate.

b) Mobile Service with/ without Mobile Space (Bus)
 Young people thought this would be events focused and questioned where ‘gigs’
might be held.
 May not be easy to get to events.
 Some young people liked the idea of a mobile space that would come to where they
were in the community, or provide a youth ‘presence’ at a youth event.
 Many focus group participants initially interpreted the model as having a ‘transport’
component (to take them from one place/space to another). Having transport to get
young people to different community locations of the mobile service was seen as
more important than a mobile space such as a bus.
 Harder to access – you might not be in the area when it comes to e.g. Paekākāriki
and miss out; don’t want to have to follow the bus/van around.
 Needs to go to a ‘neutral space’ (like Coastlands) – if it goes to Kaitawa, then
Kaitawa people will go there – it’s less inclusive and young people will stick to their
own areas and not mix.
 Still need transport to get to the mobile service as it moves around the District.
 No continuity, more for events (which are one offs and more for little kids).
 Easy to forget where and when it is (where would it go?)
 Great in summer, but a bit limited in winter.
 Need for stability – know that something is always available in the same place (also
important for parents).
 Could be an interim solution, but it says “we can’t afford a space, so we’ll come to
you”.
 Mobile Space: Questions about size limitations – would it hold enough young
people? Could you have a dance in it? Where would you go to the toilet?
Points to ponder: Focus group members were excited about the possibility of a bus/van
to take them to places, both within the community and outside of it, is this a need?

c) Central Youth Space Idea
 Danc
e
 

At Skatepark At a local
running festival
competitions Gigs volunteering
and
eve
nts
 Space owned by young people and supported by youth workers.

 Youth led, youth doing it for youth (like a youth lounge/youth café).
 Don’t call it a ‘youth centre’ (that’s for little kids), its identity needs to be built up by
young people.
 A space where we can do our own thing, not just be ‘occupied’.
 It would be great to have an outdoor space.
 Near Coastlands and not over the tracks.
 Young mums didn’t want just ‘young mums’ getting together, but an opportunity to be
with other young people.
 Gives stability.
 Connected to the community.
 Great to be able to try out stuff, even if you didn’t like it, you could try it.
 Needs to be free, but pay for some things like café – which should be affordable.
 Young people liked the idea of having a mobile space/service connected with a
physical space to provide a community presence and go to different
locations/activities.
 Young people were concerned with: the importance of respect (each other/and the
space), they discussed ways of monitoring the space and equipment; costs,
providing good equipment and being drug/alcohol free.
 Some young people also noted that it would take time to build up. They suggested
that over a generation of young people (who are year 9 now), within three to five
years, the space gains status and older young people given responsibility. Different
ages/groups could meet on different days or times.
 Could include a café, recording studio, dance studio, flexible space (hang out space
that could be changed into a movie theatre or something else); a house with multiple
spaces for different groups/activities.
 Young people liked the idea of having a centralised physical space for them to be,
with opportunities to engage with other groups and organisations in the community
(both within the physical space and outside it). A two way relationship.

 They also liked the idea of a physical space that went to the community (for those
who might not be able to get to the centre, or going to places where young people
are (e.g. at the skatepark, running a competition there; at the beach doing volleyball
etc).
Thoughts around a location/ position of a youth space

 Standalone space was the most preferred option – concerns that if in a shared
space, young people would be bound by the constraints of (older) other people.
Shared space – e.g. A community centre with a youth space:

 No ownership of young people.
 Limitations on young people’s behaviour.
 We need our own space, everything here is for adults.
Shared space with other youth related services (e.g. health service, training services)
 Some felt there would be a stigma attached to having a youth space with a health
service and were concerned about privacy; others thought that there would be
benefits and that shame/embarrassment could be managed.
 A youth space should be about being fun and not so serious (like a counselling
service), but should be a place where you can find out about those things.
 Some young people stated that having a strong relationship with other services was
important (being able to connect with and have access to).
 Being within walking distance to other services would be useful.
Shared space with existing facilities (e.g. library model)

 Most focus group members did not like the idea of a shared space with the library –
this was not a space they used/hung out in.
 Too many constraints (rules about being quiet and certain behaviour).
 Time constraints in regards to opening hours and access.
 Not suitable for youth related activities.

Feasibility Study Report For Youth Initiative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study Report For Youth Initiative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study Report For Youth Initiative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study Report for Youth Initiative

Prepared for Kāpiti Coast District Council

2 Purpose of the Feasibility Study.................................................................2

4 Current Provisions for Young People.........................................................7

5 Youth Work and Youth Development .......................................................13

6 Key Considerations for Option Selection.................................................16

7 What young people want ...........................................................................19

8 Options for a Youth Initiative ....................................................................20

8.1 Option 1: Clubs Based ...............................................................................21

8.2 Option 2: Mobile Service............................................................................25

8.3 Option 3: Outward Focused Centre ..........................................................31

9 A Comparative Overview of Three Options..............................................40

10 Conclusion and Recommendations .........................................................43

Appendix 1 - Terms of reference and membership of the Advisory Group .48

Appendix 2 - Feasibility study brief.................................................................52

Appendix 3 - A profile of young people in Kāpiti ...........................................56

Appendix 4 - List of interviews ........................................................................76

Appendix 5 - Summary of findings from the social and recreational

Appendix 6 - Youth work and youth development.........................................85

Appendix 7 - Summary of findings from the youth survey ...........................87

Appendix 8 - Summary of findings from focus groups .................................99

 gather and be themselves in place/s which they feel ownership over;

These three elements are reflected visually in the document as:

The youth initiative is underpinned with a youth development approach to be delivered

The key components of the feasibility study are:

 a profile of young people in the designated area 1 ;

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative i

The youth initiative is underpinned with a youth development approach delivered by

 Option 1 – Clubs-based would provide programming through existing

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative ii

 Option 3 - Outward focused centre is based on a modified youth centre model.

The options were assessed against a range of criteria including:

On comparison of strengths, limitations, meeting the youth initiative criteria, youth

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative iii

An Advisory Group made up of Council and community members was established in

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 1

 gather and be themselves in place/s which they feel ownership over;

These three elements are reflected visually in the document as:

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 2

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 3

 What are the social, recreational and broad educational opportunities,

Key components of the study were:

 a profile of young people in the designated area;

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 4

 interviews with 26 people/organisations working with young people;

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with managers and employers of a variety of

 what activities young people are involved with;

As a quantitative research tool, a survey does not always provide explanations or

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 5

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 6

Young people’s involvement in structured and non structured activity

 gaming and computing (379 young people, 26% of survey participants);

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 7

 The youth initiative would not be duplicating activities provided by

Time and timing: young people’s and organisation’s schedules

Information from the survey showed that:

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 8

Of the 128 clubs, associations and organisations surveyed:

Feasibility Study Report – Youth Initiative 9