Youth workers launch campaign for a return to core principles

Tony Taylor - 30 April 2009

 Ray

No apology necessary - forgive me if I was coming across as 'touchy' about Wigan. I was challenged by the implication in your argument that soft anecdotal defence of a Service would be much less effective than 'robust' defence based on statistical evidence. I was challenged because the Wigan Youth Service in the mid-90's did not collect much in the way of quantative evidence. As Chief Officer I collected stories of practice, did some creative accounting with numbers and then presented to Council a supposedly coherent  and persuasive argument about 'what we were up to'. Given I had an articulate Wigan accent, this was normally enough, but when the Council was rate-capped, it cut no ice. Given the options the Council devastated the Youth Service. In this  context, given the present predictions about massive  cuts in local government spending in the foreseeable future, my suspicion is that even a form of Youth Work obeying all the demands for outcome-led evidence might well be in danger - and, sorry, such a way of working isn't doing the business for young people any better than the practice of the  'naive' workers of the 70's and 80's.

Hoping you're in good fettle

John Killick - 30 April 2009

Reply to Mike's question on 29 April

I didn't believe the 9 minutes thing at first but then I did the maths. Once you've taken out the holidays and assume asleep as 8 hours \(the only step into unreality!) it works out to be surprisingly accurate. For reference, the National Youth Service Strategy for Wales is at http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/publications/guidance/national-youth-strategy-wales?lang=en and Jane's comment is on page ii. This information is also on page 10 of the young people's version of the strategy at http://wales.gov.uk/docrepos/40382/4038232/403821/204461/ypstrat-e.pdf?lang=cy

'In the community' refers to any community in which young people move and not, necessarily, their local one or even one defined by geography.

Ray Kinsey - 30 April 2009

Tony, my comments regarding having only anecdotal evidence to challenge cuts to budgets were not aimed at you or Wigan Youth Service. They relate to another authority I worked for. I apologise if you thought I was trying to make veiled and personal comments.

mas - 30 April 2009

I always had to doublecheck - seemed such stupid terminology. For my purposes outputs were the simple stuff that was going to happen anyway - like how many turned up, and outcomes were the more interesting stuff that as you rightly point out nobody can ever really measure properly so from the perspective of putting together funding proposals these would tend to focus only on the most basic and easily measurable. This I think is one of the biggest weaknesses on how outcomes are currently recorded - because of the desire to record thinhgs that can be measured time and energy is spent capturing stuff that really isn't as intetresting or relevant as the things that are making the real difference.

re. your last statement about these things being utterly at odds with the mechanistic agenda of the predictable and measurable - yes I believe so in so far as how we currently approach things. I've been interested in this for a long time now - trying to find ways to capture some of that stuff. I've also been aware that at first glance this seems at odds with much of the stuff this campaign strives for, the idea of being able to capture soft skills development/progress sounds like yet more monitoring and recording. I believe its possible to be able to do this creatively - the challenges are doing so in a way thats consistent to allow for some kind of analysis of actual benefits - but if it could be achieved I think a credible way of doing so would have considerable benefit for the kind of youth work you're championing.

I'm dissapointed I won't get an accredited certificate if I take part in discussions though. Can't you just print one off and call it accredited?

Tony Taylor - 30 April 2009

 Mike

Never been sure what on earth outputs means in terms of Youth Work. As for desired outcomes, of course I have - see the last point above re my humble pretension. However I know that my desires cannot be imposed on others and that my desires might well change in the midst of imaginative, critical dialogue with others. Aren't these words - creativity, imagination, dialogue, change, fantasy, desire - utterly at odds with the mechanistic agenda of the predictable and measurable?

mas - 29 April 2009

 I trust you have desired outcomes and outputs too? ;-)

Tony Taylor - 29 April 2009

There's a lot going on here, which is to the good. Indeed the fundamental motivation of the Open Letter is to generate a critical and independent debate amongst youth work practitioners [in the widest sense of the word] about the present character and direction of Youth Work. Thus the present discussion is to be warmly welcomed. However I must confess to feeling fragile about my next contribution. Why? Probably because for me this particular format begins to be inadequate.

Firstly, because responding to Ray Kinsey's challenging defence of a contemporary youth work practice that is geared to young people and their chances in the labour market would require more than a counter assertion. For example it would lead me to suggesting that this particular emphasis is not new at all. In the mid-70's as youth unemployment  rose, we were running school-leaver courses obsessed with improving  interviewing techniques and the like, committed to encouraging young people to do the D of E etc... The strategy was haunted by the fact that there were simply not enough jobs. Many young people honed their techniques, gained Awards and still couldn't gain employment. Many couldn't be arsed. And I would need to follow this trail to the present day. On an emotional and analytical level I would need to face up to whether my evident incompetence as the 'anecdotally informed' Chief Officer of the Wigan Youth Service was the key reason for the savage cuts in 1994. Having discussed with workers in recent months their negative experience of amassing supposedly 'hard' quantitative evidence, I would need to explain why I believe this sort of accounting affords no better picture of authentic practice than a soft qualitative approach. I don't think the obligation to explain myself, to be self-critical, is intellectual self-indulgence or a consequence of being a long-winded old hack . It's necessary if we are to have a serious debate.

And yet, secondly, at least some of my concern would be eased if, in addition to exchanging written commentary, we move to face-face discussion in the coming months. In this context I suspect there would be much more chance of 'give-and-take' between, say, Ray and myself. Whereas on paper we can back one another into separate corners.

 Making this last point brings me to Mike's 'tongue-in-cheek' [!]  question re defining the 'targets' of the 'In Defence' initiative. Targets and outcomes indeed, wash your mouth out! At this juncture I must straighten the misconception that the Open Letter is my concoction and property. Certainly I drafted it, but the thrust of its argument owes everything to discussion within the Critically Chatting Collective, all except me still up to their necks in the mire of practice, to the debates at Youth & Policy and Federation of Detached Youth Work conferences, to engaging with the critiques of such as Bernard Davies, Tony Jeffs and Mark Smith, Kalbir Shukra, Janet Batsleer, Jean Spence et al. My brief was to speak to a diverse constituency of youth work practitioners, unhappy with the present state of play and to see if, in listening, they thought we had anything worthwhile to say.

 After testing out this response I accept certainly that the question 'where we might go next?' will attract differing opinions.

Thus my own view is that I'm interested in a conversation with practitioners, who identify broadly with the In Defence argument. There is no guarantee, no predictability of outcome here and without doubt no State accreditation. For my part my pretension is humble. I hope that as a result of this process a network of  practitioners committed to the principles of In Defence is created, an alliance of support that is able to weigh up, given the specific political circumstances, the possibilities of defending and even extending  a democratic and emancipatory youth work. This will be tough, much harder than being the supplicants of those in power.

 Tony Taylor

Ray Kinsey - 29 April 2009

The problem for me in this discussion is that what appears to be a defence of young people's rights and choices does not take on board some crucial points regarding the position of young people.  As someone who was a face to face youth worker in the 80's and 90's I can remember the fierce stance adopted by staff, services and trades unions in relation to the voluntary nature of youth work, the notion of meeting young people on their own terms, being non-judgemental, encouraging young people to make informed choices, etc. etc.  Now as a youth work manager, guess what, I still believe in these things and as far as I'm aware the service I work for holds these values as well.

However none of these principles need to be put at risk by the implementation of targets that require young people's achievements to be recorded and accredited.  I have yet to see a good piece of youth work that did not result in young people gaining knowledge and learning skills.  The question is what does the acquisition of learning mean in terms of its impact on young people?  There must be many youth workers who share my experiences of bumping in to people we worked with as young people in the 80's and 90's whose life chances were improved by only a tiny amount (if at all) despite our best efforts to deliver informal education through issues based work in a non-judgemental fashion.  I dare to suggest that in some cases the impact we had on many young peoples lives was in the long term at worst negligible and at best not provable.

We live in a society where, like it or not (and I don't like it), a person's ability to survive in a commercial world determines their position, status, self confidence etc.  It is difficult to challenge the racist and sexist attitudes of a white working class male on the grounds of the institutional power they hold over women or black people when that young person is unable to be a full member of a community because economic status is denied them. It's no good telling them they mis-use their power when they don't feel powerful at all. Consequently the role of the youth worker should include support for young people to evidence their abilities and learning to the extent that it enhances their employment opportunities.  Whilst much derision has been aimed at, for example, Duke of Edinburgh Award programmes the fact remains that many potential employers have heard about them and recognise that young people have to demonstrate useful skills to achieve them.  Rather than challenging young people's choices is it not possible that helping them to evidence their achievements could widen their opportunities.

Interestingly the youth work profession places great value on accredited awards when they are in the form of recognised qualifications for full-time and part-time staff.  Youth work qualifications lead to an expansion of opportunities for their holders.  They lead to a level of economic security unknown to many of the young people we work with and subsequently an improvement in life opportunities.  Yet we hesitate to see the value of recording and accrediting young people's learning when it might help them to gain the same things we seek.

There is also a benefit in recording measurable outcomes inasmuch as it helps us to demonstrate our value to people who do not have an understanding of youth work.  I became a manager not because I "could not handle open youth contact and youth engagement", as a previous contributor suggests, but because the service I left to take up my new post was being decimated by spending cuts.  The local authority I worked for 15 years or so ago prioritised the provision of public toilets higher that its youth service and we had little more than anecdotal evidence to challenge this premise.  The authority I now work for knows how many young people we work with and what they achieve.  Doubtless youth services in many parts of the country face spending cuts over the next years but at least they will have the evidence to argue that they should be treated in the same way as other services rather than in the disproportionate manner which prevailed in the previous two decades.

Of course youth work should be something young people want to engage in.  Of course it should expose them to new, exciting and fun experiences but if they learn along the way should they not also be empowered to demonstrate this?

mas - 29 April 2009

Hi John - I haven't heard the 9 minutes in every hour thing before, be interested in how that was calculated but none the less its a nice principle. There was a similar comparison made between schoolt ime and time consuming media (details here) which leads nicely to the debate about whether theres a role/need for youth work online too - in so far as if you argue the need to engage with them 'in the community', perhaps thats no longer confined to the locality.

The 5/60 programme looks interesting (and is well needed), but I see no reason why vacant facilities can't be used for youth work too. If church halls, buses and all manner of other buildings can be then why not? - its just a venue and I'd argue the more places youth work can take place the more young people are likely to benefit.

John Killick - 29 April 2009

 OK - just to clarify and thanks for raising the issues so that I can do so.

I'm not against the use of schools for activities out of school time for all the good reasons you describe Mike - in Wales we call it the 5/60 programme and it is very welcome. But it is not youth work and those who deliver it would be horrified if they thought they had to work with young people on some of the issues that would be brought up in a youth work situation.

I'm not against youth workers being in schools so long as they are allowed to act as youth workers and not deliver lesson times because the teachers cannot control the pupils or where they are 'forced' into that situation and the worker / young person relationship cannot, in any way, be described as voluntary. Despite their usual sharpness on such matters it supposes a level of clairvoyance by the young person as to those times when s/he can enter into different behaviours or has different behavioural expectations and must also have at least some effect on trust. I am certainly not in favour of them going onto the streets with the prime objective of fetching truanting young people into school.

The previous Minister for Education in Wales, Jane Davidson, referred in her foreward to the National Youth Service Strategy for Wales to the 9 minutes in every waking hour that young people spend in school and the 51 minutes in their communities and that the Youth Service has the major role to play in working with them at those times. I think she was right and wish she were still in that role to continue to influence others.

mas - 29 April 2009

 @Bernard thanks for that - my interest is in wondering what the current balance of provision is for young people (albeit aware theres no such thing and services vary wildly etc.) but I wonder how many other services, voluntary organisations, sports clubs, dance groups etc. etc. already provide the kinds of informal supportive relationships this campaign strives for?

@John thats quite a read ;-) I think the point about youth work being influenced by an educationalist culture is interesting. To relate it to my question above it seems as though some youth services are struggling to find a place in between the adhoc voluntary/informal provision led by people who are not qualified youth workers and formal education, with youth work maybe bouncing between rather than in between?

Personally I think providing activities for young people within school facilities outside of school time is a good idea. I understand some of the concerns and I understand the thinking that some young people who view school negatively may not wish to attend (having been kicked out of school I sympathise), but firstly not using school facilities where they can be made available seems wasteful, secondly I've never liked the anti-school mentality that sometimes across from within youth work. I hated school and think the current curriculum is poor, but the fact is that if its possible to support young people to attend school and gain recognised qualifications they will generally be at an advantage against not doing so. If towards this providing young people with a positive experience out of school but using school facilities helps break down some of the barriers to attending school normally I think thats sensible.

As for youth workers in schools I'm not sure what to make of this and it seems to be an increasing trend. I think youth workers and teachers gaining a better understanding and relationship is positive, but in my mind youth workers should primarily be available during those times young people can voluntarily participate - evenings, weekends and school holidays, but now we hear that youth workers can't do those hours because they're already working during school times!

re. who the campaign is targeted at I was wondering that too. Maybe Tony could share some thoughts on who the campaign aims to target and how it intends to reach them - or even better how it could provoke a conversation?

DAVIES - 29 April 2009

A challenging set of comments, and the one about youth work becoming just another service certainly hits home - though that goes well beyond having to meet the demands of schools.

However am not sure what you say takes anywhere near enough account of much else that seems to be happening in England currently. Of the twelve English local authorities covered in the De Montfort Univ Inquiry into youth work which I've recently been involved in, one Service had been moved out of a leisure department (a decision not unwelcome to its senior managers) – only to be placed in a 'targeted services' division alongside 'behaviour management', youth offending, special educational needs and the pupil referral units. Another located in 'targeted services' was being 'integrated' with youth offending, and fostering, residential care and adoption. Others fell within divisions or directorates called 'access to education' (including SEN and 'inclusion'); 'prevention and safeguarding'; 'vulnerable children'; and 'access, inclusion and participation'.

Not sure how any of this can be reassuring for those of us who continue to believe in the model of youth work based on 'social education on young people's terms' which you advocate.

Bernard Davies

John Killick - 29 April 2009

A few things came to mind after previous my flippant response - flippant because governments' agenda linked to their inspectorates' dogma have always seemed to be contradictory but immune to challenge. I've long been of a view which I'll explain though I'm very concerned that it does not deflect from the main point of his campaign - my question is about whether we are attacking the right 'enemy'.

Over my many years  as a manager in youth work,  I managed youth services which were not based in Education. One was in Community Development and the other in Leisure Youth and Culture. I think both were highly integratory services in that they worked very closely with deliverers of other types of work to young people. Neither lost its way in terms of the voluntary nature of youth work because of this. Neither lost the view that young people should be able to influence decision making and on most occasions, make decisions. In most cases, these people from other services, who I'm pleased to call colleagues, were extremely pro-active in helping with this on the wider agenda of young people's needs.

When we met young people they fully supported the whole issue of young people's decision making, often reaching a point where they pulled me up and corrected me for missing an opportunity. They also fully supported a service for young people which was about social education on young people's terms and where they should not be led by a government agenda. Indeed, they saw it as vital that Youth Service should not be pushed into obsessions about formal outcomes but valued the way it worked with young people from their own agenda. They also used the analogy of going down to the pub for some accreditation (we did not disagree with accreditation per se but that it should be 'enforced' when young people had interests in activities or issues but not in accreditation).

The work together was extremely rewarding - informally so in England and formally through Extending Entitlement and Yung People's Partnerships in Wales - though this formality started after we had already got it going informally.

The question I am raising therefore is about is about why Youth Service managers feel harassed to the extent is described in this comments trail into work they don't agree with. The focus of the answers to that so far suggest that the joining up agenda and that this has led to youth work becoming just another service doing the same as all the others and is therfore 'to blame'. I am not convinced that this is so.

I question whether it is more to do with the fact that most Youth Services are based in an Education Department and come under the control of Directors of Education. Directors of Education are becoming more besieged by Headteachers who do not see it as part of the role of their school to deal with recalcitrant pupils and consequently the Directors find their Child Psychiatry sections 'over-burdened'. Their answer they come up with is to send in a few youth workers to solve the problem - and more cheaply, but that's another issue. I hear of a large Welsh valley Youth Service which is said to be about to get rid of its youth centres and bringing youth workers into schools to become part of a team of services. The idea that young people who are not in love with their schools will want to spend their voluntary time there only adds to the irony. So, is it the the local Partnership that is demanding this change to youth work - it would appear not, it seems to be the Education Department - along with fairly substantial cuts to budget. What will the role of the youth workers become? In the daytime it will probably be to go out and bring in the truants or to work with classes of difficult pupils - both very voluntary relationships I am sure!

So, my view is more towards the reponsibility for the loss of our core principles being with Education Departments and their Directors who are able to justify their actions from an interpretation of government agenda aided and abetted by inspectorate comments. They can then using their directorial position to do with Youth Services as they wish - both to save money for schools  or general council savings and bolster support to schools. I believe it is this which causes the greater problem to youth work than the joining up agenda.

My reason comes from the personal experience described above for which I can only see two major reasons. The first is that I am such a forceful personality that other service managers were with me and saw values in the Youth Service which they did not want changed or, secondly, that I was fortunate to not have a Director of Education bullying me but had supportive managers. Despite my tendency to arrogance, it does not stretch as far as seeing the former as the root cause.

I realise I am coming to a point of heresy here since I suggesting that Youth Service, in order to maintain its voluntary relationship and social education role with young people, may be disadvantaged by being in Education Departments. Please, I am not suggesting that youth work should not be about learning - but many things can be about learning without being in the Education department - and we can all be thankful for that! So, I am questioning whether the responses so far on this comment link are not looking at the wrong issue to challenge. In suggestng this, I do not want to set off red herrings that get in the way of the primary objective of restoring core values to youth work to which I pledge my support.

DAVIES - 29 April 2009

It was good to hear of your research - really hope your article gets published as it would be great to have that evidence fully and easily in the public domain.

If you want to get details of the DMU conference on June 1st they are available from cyw.conference@googlemail.com. (Incidentally the Inquiry on which it is based was done with Bryan (not Bernard!) Merton.

Mike:

I don't have any up to date figures (maybe NYA does?) but for my book 'The New Labour Years' I came across material which showed that 'by 2000 the churches were claiming to be employing between 7000 and 8000 full time "youth workers". (Only half that number, and only 7190 full-time paid equivalents, were working for the local authorities)' (p79). Don't know whether that's still relevant or helps? Also, note that 'youth worker' is in quotes as the precise qualifications, role etc of the people being included aren't always clear.

Bernard Davies

mas - 28 April 2009

Does anyone have figures for the amount of local authority Youth Workers against the amount of Youth Workers employed in the voluntary sector, and the amount in the faith sector? maybe too the amount of unpaid youth leaders?

Its not scientific but for the residential programme I used to run that was open to youth groups nationally Youth Service Youth Workers were in a minority of those that attended with groups of young people. Overall attendance was about 50/50 paid vs volunteer but of those paid workers I'd say less than half were Youth Workers employed by a local authority or Connexions.

I'm wondering if anyone has a picture of what the overall pattern of provision for young people is?

Tony Taylor - 28 April 2009

 And, as we attempt to create anew an alliance in defence, the debate is going to become uncomfortable. Amongst the points made by Jose Johnson two strike me in particular and they impinge directly on the question of management within youth work. Questions are raised for all of us [after all many youth workers, like it or not, find themselves being managers at one level or other], but particularly for an organisation like the newly formed Confederation representing senior management.

 The 'In Defence of Youth Work' is no revolutionary manifesto born of my wild-eyed fantasies. Its definition of democratic and emancipatory youth work stands in a tradition going back at least to the dawn of the last century within the faith and socialist groups of that period via Macalister Brew and Batten through to the best of Albemarle and the Radical Work of the 80's. Its critique of the past decade and more of 'new managerialism' based on Jeffs and Smith is supported widely - see the developing concern at the damage done within primary schooling. The Letter has been described as 'the consensus of the profession'. In this context what might be preventing the Heads of Young People's Services signing up as supporters?

Is their reluctance intertwined deeply with the reality that many of them have uncritically imposed the barren discourse of 'measurable and predictable outcomes', brooking no opposition from their staff?

And, hasn't a consequence of this  hierarchical and authoritarian stance been to demoralise and intimidate, suppressing dissent within a Service that is supposedly about critical dialogue? I do not make this charge lightly, but I have too many friends in the work, who have been harassed; too many, who have told me 'Tony, I'm exhausted with being put down, from now, I'm keeping my gob shut'; too many, who have been off sick, mentally and physically for lengthy periods. Indeed too it's been revealing that a number of workers getting in touch supporting the Letter have asked not to be named for fear of management retribution and several have withdrawn comments for the same reason. One experienced and committed practitioner, whilst apologising for perhaps their paranoia, has worried that if the campaign dies away, people on the supporters list might well be singled out by management. Is this a picture of neurotic exaggeration? Or does it resonate in harmony with the manipulative and bureaucratic culture beloved of New Labour? Does it shine a torch on events behind the scenes, which never see the light of day at the carefully controlled, self-congratulatory set pieces about the work staged at a national level?

Of course I know there are individual senior officers, who have struggled bravely against the tide and they know who they are and have my greatest respect.

It would be informative to hear more about the CYWU [UNITE] conference and what action the union is proposing.

Tony Taylor

johnson - 27 April 2009

At last the debate is underway. I have been a youth worker for over 20 years from a volunteer to a senior manager and never have I seen a period where long established and committed youth workers are so demoted to the extent that they are leaving a profession that they have loved and given 100% commitment to the young people they work with.

This government and its totalitarian policies towards young people need to take a look back to their youth and compare how much freedom they had to go about their leisure activities without being coraled in to structured activities and required to gain accredited outcomes.  Why are they eroding the distinctiveness of the voluntary relationship professional youth workers have with the young people they work with.  Youth work starts where the young people are and works with their agenda/ideas not that of the adults and the funders. If it is not bad enough that the spontaneity of the work is being taken away, we now face the threat of the dismantling of services up and down the country with the introduction of IYSS and TYS.

Susie if as you say people now recognise the contribution youth workers make on young peoples lives why is it that many of your college are letting their services go to the wall by commissioning them out or letting them be consumed by the likes of connexions and devaluing youth workers by scrapping JNC terms and conditions but want the qualifications.  If you had been at the conference of UNITE this last week you would have seen how the profession and its supporters feel about this goverments agenda that many PYO's are implementing.

John Killick - 27 April 2009

At last this debate can take place. There seems to be a certain irony from the inspectorates' (i.e. OFSTED and Estyn) ensuring that young people can make decisions about what goes on in their own youth environments whle telling Youth Services (the government's perspective) what they should be delivering.

Anyway, no time for more banter with you folk. I'm off to the puub where I hope to get involved in some accredited work on real ale.

Good luck - can I join you?

John Killick

Rosemary Phillips - 27 April 2009

Rosemary Phillips

Tony,

Good to get your message obviously my thesis is held at the British Library - it has a date of September 2007 on it although the PhD was awarded in March 2008 - I actually read thoroughly the two volumes of Bernard Davies 'The History of the Youth Service in England' before I even started writing my thesis! I have also submitted an article to The Journal of Youth Studies but as yet have had no response. I would be interested to hear more about the conference in Leicester.

Rosemary Phillips

Tony Taylor - 27 April 2009

Rosemary

To say the least I'm sure your research will be valuable. A long-standing dilemma within the work is the absence of critical analysis of practice. Inevitably the majority of our reports are framed to suit the desires of managers and funders and are often forced to smooth out contradiction. Thus it will be challenging to engage with your material. I'll get in touch direct. And to note too that a report commissioned by De Montfort University produced by Bernard Merton and Bernard Davies on 'the state of youth work practice' should be hitting the streets next week ahead of conference in Leicester on June 1, providing further grist to the mill of debate.

Tony Taylor

Rosemary Phillips - 27 April 2009

Rosemary Phillips

After years of working with young people in a teaching capacity I have recently completed a PhD on 'The Impact of Connexions on the Lives of Young People'. This involved ethnographic research in three 'drop in centres' for young people with the aim of gaining the perspective of young people themselves on their lives and the services provided for them.

Whilst not undermining the importance of education, employment and training for all young people my findings exposed the limitations of the NEET concept which is now used in Government initiatives and serves to stereotype a heterogeneous group of young people. My findings also confirm the value of basic youth work principles including voluntary access, starting where the young person is and working at a pace appropriate for them and adopting an accepting and non judgemental approach.

There was evidence of very real progress made with young people who had formed relationships with youth workers but although some of this progress accorded with government targets allowing the young people to be defined as EET - how I hate these concepts - other very positive progress was not recognised at all and these young people were still identified as NEET - ugh!

I feel the imposition of these targets does not appreciate the very real progress some young people make in their lives and also does not recognise the great contributions youth workers are making - I hope this target setting does not undermine this contribution by younth workers to the lives of disadvantaged young people but I do feel that the setting of government targets could affect this.

I would be very happy to share more of my research findings if these will be of value to the debate - as I am now 69 I gained my PhD rather late in life but I do feel I have a valuable contribution to make to this debate. If required I can be contacted by email at rfp@soton.ac.uk

Tony Taylor - 24 April 2009

A quick note and chuckle. I know that Bernard Davies is mortified by the implication in his comment headed simply DAVIES, that we should all know who he is. Well, in fact, I suspect that most of us within Youth Work, when hearing the name, Davies, do think it's that fellow, Bernard Davies, who has kept many of us on our toes for quite a few decades. And, as ever , he is up to his old tricks, questioning and taking nothing for granted. Long may he continue!

Tony Taylor

Tania - 24 April 2009

As a youth worker daily juggling all this paperwork and inflexible bureaucracy, it is really exciting to feel that I am not alone in opposing these changes to youth work's core.

Young people want to choose whether or not to work with us. Most want to focus on practical activity and discussion in their leisure time, not on form-filling and box-ticking. And they do not want to have to share their personal details with all and sundry. I'm really looking forward to seeing what others have to say at the London meeting \(and to hearing about other meetings around the country!)

For those who haven't, look at http://indefenceofyouthwork.wordpress.com for more info and to sign up.

wendy brennan - 24 April 2009

Susie I feel that you have missed the point? You say that we need to keep the argument focused upon youth work...well that is exactly what 'In defense of youth work' is about, the clue is in the title. I have had many a misfortune of listening to many individuals who from 'youth organisations' who sound nothing more than a government Muppet, droning on about targets and accountability. There is not problem in being accountable, the proble is when you have 'youth' leader and workers who are turning young people into government puppets! Where is the social and political elements of practice? I am sure that there are plenty of workers who embed this into their practice, but the events I have been to, workers have done nothing more than coached young people into saying what adults want to hear...geared around targets and outcomes...this is not youth work, it is being a government puppet and depoliticises young people! The worst offenders are the so called lead 'youth agencies'! Who spout the same rhetoric as government policy...and feel threatened when anyone else wants to have a say..."do rock the boat, upset the applecart"!

On a final note, I am not having a go at practitioners here, just before anyone has a go ;}

DAVIES - 24 April 2009

It is really disappointing that Susie Roberts, on behalf of the Confederation she represents, felt the need to respond so defensively to the 'In Defence of Youth Work' letter. My own youth work involvement over many years has thrown up repeated examples of 'positive impacts' on young people. Though obviously we need to go on finding ways of explaining and demonstrating these, that is only one of the things we now need to be debating. At least as pressing a challenge currently is: how do we do that in ways which 'fit' with the distinctive nature of the practice. Because, if we can only justify this by 'outcomes' to which a statistic can be attached, then what is at the heart of youth work – its process - will get marginalised and increasingly lost.

What seems particularly odd for someone coming from Susie Roberts' position is how much her comments miss the dilemmas being faced by so many of her members. I have just had the privilege of interviewing young people, workers and a range of managers in seven Youth Services and helping to collate responses from five others. This 'modest inquiry' does reveal some senior managers as having taken the New Labour 'agendas' on board far too uncritically, in the process opening up worrying gaps between their and many of their workers' judgements on what is happening to youth work. However, an equally clear message from the interviews is that many senior officers, recognising the threats posed by top-down policies, would probably echo the comment of one of their number that, when thrown yet another government initiative, the decision they face is: 'How do we do this without prostituting ourselves?'

All of which suggests that what those of us committed to youth work now need are opportunities to share our current experience of youth work practice and how it is developing and explore how, together, we can mount the best defence possible of its defining principles and approaches.

mas - 24 April 2009

I'm enjoying following the progress of this, mostly because its very helpful towards questioning what you think youth work (and related work) is about, what it stands for etc.

I am in favour of 'outcomes', but not in the prescriptive sense. Instead I see value in being able to capture outcomes flexibly and in a way that's appropriate to and reflective of the work done and its approach. In the work I've done over the past few years I've been lucky to have been able to agree fairly loose outcomes (and outputs!!), but in most cases it hasn't been those set outcomes that have had the most benefit either for individuals or the programmes, the problem of course is its very difficult to capture very much of what those benefits are, but then again that's not an excuse to not try. Incidentally in making end of year reports the only part that mattered was reporting on those 'loose outcomes' initially set which means those reports never did truly reflect what the programmes were achieving within information sent back to those commissioning it.

As for the principle of voluntary involvement I think its hugely important, the few bits of work I've done with young people referred to me has never had the same impact as those programmes/activities where young people choose to be involved (neither for that matter did programmes we ran where youth workers had conned young people into attending through false claims & promises). That said there is a place for referral work with some young people too but I sympathise with the need to make a clear distinction.

Tony Taylor - 23 April 2009

Message to Tony Pretty

Good to get your supportive message and your insightful commentary on the fetish of outcomes. Sign up via the web site at http://indefenceofyouthwork.wordpress.com

There's going to be a South-East meeting at Goldsmiths on Tuesday, May 19. Hope you can make it.

Best wishes

Tony Taylor

Tony Taylor - 23 April 2009

I'll begin by thanking Janaki for drawing attention to our 'In Defence of Youth Work' campaign. If readers want to know more we have created a website to keep folk abreast of developments at http://indefenceofyouthwork.wordpress.com.

As for Susie Robert's criticisms we are very much open to a serious debate. Indeed we would welcome a thoughtful and even self-critical response from the Confederation to the contradictions and dilemmas of being a Senior Manager in the New Labour decade. I may be past my sell-by date, but I do know a little about the profound contradictions of being a so-called Chief Officer.  Are we to believe that the Confederation simply glows with pride at its imposition of New Labour's spurious, predictable outcomes-led agenda; that its members believe that their impact  upon institutions across the  country  has been without doubt in the service of democratic and emancipatory youth work 'on the side of young people; that they don't have a reservation here and there about the present state of affairs?

Our position is plain. A critical, questioning, unpredictable Youth Work practice has been damaged deeply by the last decade and more of 'new managerialism'.  Our position is supported by the analyses of some of the most committed thinkers and practitioners of the last 30 years - from Bernard Davies through Jeffs and Smith to Janet Batsleer and Carol Packham.

Of course, in accord with Bertrand Russell, we maintain our conclusions with doubt. But if we are to be put right, we expect more than a sound-bite from our superiors. We look forward to the Confederation's defence of what it considers to be Youth Work.

Tony Pretty - 23 April 2009

There have always been those that could not handle open youth contact and youth engagement on the terms of young peoples own identified needs and involvement. Many of them moved on away from face to face youth work and some into youth work management and control position dictating a new compulsion based on OUTCOMES. As it was the only way they can justify their own work and showed their own lack of trust in their fellow Youth Workers that were engaging young people on their terms. So compassion, humanity and having fun had to become measurable outcome to justify what Youth Workers were achieving WHAT?

So it is no wonder the present government works on compulsion and not a voluntary commitment of participation by the young people.

Those of us that have kept true to the Youth Work Principle now need to ensure that the next generation of young people and those working with young people can aspired and achieve via that special relationship that develops between young people and youth workers that grows and develops and is not conscription, judgemental or comes out of being compelled but from wanting to meet young women and men on those young peoples terms needs and wants as they do know and are responsive to trust.

How do you sign-up to it?

mas - 23 April 2009

Susie Roberts: "We don't need to be defensive because most people now recognise the contribution youth workers make in young people's lives"

Really?! Most people - in fact make that nearly ALL people I talk to outside of youth work have no idea what youth work is. I'd agree that its a service that should be promoted much more though.

Elizabeth Bacon - 23 April 2009

I have been in the youth service for 24 years two I belive that the outcome and training now are very good but I do feel something is missing along the way it is called HUMANITY