When I reflect back on my youth I do wonder sometimes how I survived; some didn't - they were killed in drunk-driving accidents or motorbikes accidents or became addicts...I have often wondered what kept me safe: was it luck, unconditional parental love, having a home to return to after a night spent tripping?

... so while I think in general 'the kids are alright' and agree with much of what you argue (and am particularly concerned about the logic that absolves any responsibility of outcomes), I also think the term 'youth at risk' is often used to describe those whose circumstances are not ideal - the ones who aren't so 'lucky' (and I include socioeconomic disadvantage ) or were denied the kind of support and love that many middle-class white kids in Australia receive. This includes the capacity to think about the difficulty to 'transition' into secure meaningful employment in a climate of casualised, credentialed workforce - another factor that puts young people at risk of poor mental and financial health - and is affecting the most disadvantaged. In other words, I don't think the many policy-makers and educators who employ this concept in their research and analysis are abnegating their responsibility, and would probably be concerned if the terminology was taken up that way; rather I think they are often emphasising that globalisation, environmental change and so on are conspiring to make life an increasingly inequitable and 'risky' venture for some.

Well argued Shelbian. I agree that many "kids at risk" often come from a distruptive - disadvantaged background however... I think middle-class youth are also meant in this framework. This is because many kids... do not get the attention - nor an opportunity to engage (with adults) in shared activities... we lack a community framework most everywhere... one required to build capacity where safety challenged, is a mindfulness based on self-discipline and not a pretense of extreme sport... where critical awareness acts-out a willfulness unleashed.

For this reason I point us back to;

"Yet life is about "risk" ...

"Beyond education, the decades-long trend towards casualised labour markets has reduced the ability of many people to plan for the long-term. So, even though they are educated and thus deemed accountable, many people are unable, due to structural labour market features, to obtain the stability of employment that would enable them to determine their eventual career, social and class location."

We need to consider the causal elements here?