What we now know as youth work emerged in the third quarter of the
nineteenth century. By the end of that century such ‘work among youth’ had
established its typical forms: the club, the uniformed troupe, the
fellowship, and outreach to those not initially attracted to such groups. It
had also gained its classic characteristics:
Attention to the needs, experiences and
contribution of young people.
Workers who were able, in the later words of the
McNair Report (1944), to be 'a guide, philosopher and friend to young
people'. Much was dependent on their character and integrity.
A focus on relationship and upon encouraging all
to join together in friendship to organize and take part in groups and
activities. This was often described as fostering fellowship and
associational life.
A concern to create moments for reflection and
learning. When combined with the above it could be described as a
process of friends educating each other.
Working on the basis on choice. Young people
could accept or reject the invitation to take part.
The purpose of the work was well summed up by the motto of the Oxford and
Bermondsey Club in the early 1900s – Fratres (fraternity). It was
also infused with Christian concern as the aim of the Time and Talents Guild
(from the same period) makes clear: ‘To seek through fellowship, prayer and
service to bring the Spirit of Christ into every part of life’. The
contemporary, secular interest in the cultivation of social capital and in
the development of the whole person can be seen as standing in a direct line
with these concerns.
The last clear ‘government’ statements of youth work in its classic form
can be found in the Albemarle Report (1960) and Youth and
Community Work in the 70s (1969). The former famously talked about
offering young people opportunities for association, training and challenge.
Since then a number of factors have contributed to a significant drift away
from youth work essentials within state-sponsored work. Here I just want to
mention four. First, the parallel processes of secularization and
professionalization within youth services has meant that links have been
effectively cut with many of the ideals and practices of the social and
religious movements that gave birth to, and remain by far the largest
providers of, youth work. Youth service work became a job rather than a
calling.
Second, state-sponsored services failed to respond to the changing
experiences of young people and to shifts in society as a whole. In
particular, it never really came to terms with extended education, the rise
of the home as a centre of entertainment, and declining involvement in
community and enthusiast groups.
Third, state-sponsored youth services became cautious, bureaucratized and
managerial. This, in turn, further alienated many local voluntary groups.
Much of the innovatory work of the 1980s and 1990s was based in the
voluntary sector.
Fourth, in order to sustain funding youth services and national agencies
increasingly made a case for their activities around the needs of
‘problematic’ young people. ‘Issue-based’ work became more the norm for such
services. Their focus was further narrowed by movements in government policy
and the use of targeted funding.
The result has been a movement into a more individualized, programmatic
and accredited form of working. In many respects much of the work undertaken
by state-sponsored youth services is better described as a conservative
version of the north American tradition of youth development rather than
youth work.
Since its inception youth work has overwhelmingly been undertaken by
volunteers and workers in local groups. These groups, in turn, are part of
national and international movements. Scouting and guiding provide a very
visible and constant example of this. In recent years, however, two
important growth areas have emerged and which stand in line with the core
concerns of youth work.
First, within many churches there has been a deepening and accelerating
interest in work with young people. By 1998, the English Church Attendance
Survey found that some 21 per cent of churches had a full-time salaried
youth worker. This figure may have included some curates who had youth work
as their prime responsibility - but it is nonetheless very significant. It
suggests that at that time there were about 7,900 full-time youth workers in
English churches - and that this comfortably exceeded the number of
full-time workers employed by local authorities (3190). The Church had
become the largest employer of youth workers in the country.
Second, and in part as a result of initiatives such as New Deal for
Communities and the encouragement of tenant management there has been a
growing interest in youth work by local community and tenants groups.
While there are various difficulties and debates around concept of social
capital its possession can have a very positive impact. For example, Putnam
(Bowling Alone 2000) and others have been able to marshal an impressive
amount of material to demonstrate that:
Child development is powerfully shaped by social
capital. Trust, networks, and norms of reciprocity within a child’s
family, school, peer group, and larger community have far reaching
effects on their opportunities and choices, and hence on their behaviour
and development (ibid.: 296-306)
In high social-capital areas public spaces are
cleaner, people are friendlier, and the streets are safer. Traditional
neighbourhood “risk factors” such as high poverty and residential
mobility are not as significant as most people assume. Places have
higher crime rates in large part because people don’t participate in
community organizations, don’t supervise younger people, and aren’t
linked through networks of friends. (ibid.: 307-318)
A growing body of research suggests that where
trust and social networks flourish, individuals, firms, neighbourhoods,
and even nations prosper economically. Social capital can help to
mitigate the insidious effects of socioeconomic disadvantage. (ibid.:
319-325)
There appears to be a strong relationship between
the possession of social capital and better health. ‘As a rough rule of
thumb, if you belong to no groups but decide to join one, you cut your
risk of dying over the next year in half. If you smoke and belong to no
groups, it’s a toss-up statistically whether you should stop smoking or
start joining’ (ibid.: 331). Regular club attendance, volunteering,
entertaining, or church attendance is the happiness equivalent of
getting a college degree or more than doubling your income. Civic
connections rival marriage and affluence as predictors of life happiness
(ibid.: 333).
The World Bank has also brought together a range of statistics to make
the case for the social and economic benefits of social capital. They also
indicate some negative impacts, for example, when disgruntled local elites
joined together to close health clinics in Uttar Pradesh. Child mortality
rates soared as a result.
Social capital provides youth workers with a powerful contemporary
rationale for their activities. As we have seen, the classic working
environment for the youth worker is the group, club, church or community
organization – and these settings are central to the generation of social
capital within communities. That is to say they are primary means for
cultivating social networks and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness. Several points need underlining here.
First, the simple act of joining and being regularly involved in
organized groups has a very significant impact on individual health and
well-being. Working so that people may join groups – whether they are
organized around enthusiasms and interests, social activity, or economic and
political aims – can make a considerable contribution in itself. Encouraging
the development of associational life can also make a significant difference
to the experience of being in different communities. Here we might highlight
the case of schooling. Educational achievement is likely to rise
significantly, and the quality of day-to-day interaction is likely to be
enhanced by a much greater emphasis on the cultivation of extra-curricula
activity involving groups and teams (in contrast to the curriculum-extension
activities of homework ‘clubs’ and the like).
Second, youth work’s longstanding concern with association and the
quality of life in associations can make a direct and important contribution
to the development of social networks (and the relationships of trust and
tolerance that is usually involved) and the strengthening of democracy.
Third, there is very strong argument here against those who wish to
concentrate the bulk of resources on groups and individuals who present the
strongest social problems. If we follow the analysis through then we can see
that, for example, crime can be reduced, educational achievement enhanced
and better health fostered through the strengthening of social capital.
Significantly this entails working across communities – and in particular
sustaining the commitment and capacities already involved in community
organizations and enthusiast groups, and encouraging those on the cusp of
being actively involved. The majority of the people we are talking about
here cannot be classified as suffering from multiple disadvantage, will not
be engaged in criminal activity, and will be (or have been) engaged with
education systems and/or the world of work. In other words, open and generic
work needs to be afforded a far higher priority – and so-called
‘issue-based’ work needs to be more closely interrogated as to the benefits
it brings.
So what should government involvement be in this area? It is clear that
the fostering of social capital is of fundamental importance economically
and socially. It is also clear that direct intervention by the state around
social capital is problematic. As John Field has said (Social Capital
2003) it can only be built by engaging civil society - and helping to create
the conditions for associational life. This includes funding some aspects of
the work. There are some obvious steps that can be taken:
A significant amount of money needs to be put into local associations of
youth groups to support the development and work of their member groups.
This includes training workers and helpers, and providing opportunities to
take part in different activities and to meet other groups.
Many groups, especially in areas where there is significant poverty – or
where there is not a strong tradition of community organization - will
continue to require state funding. Here special care needs to be taken to
avoid the alienating effects of targets, intrusive monitoring, and an
over-emphasis on paperwork. A revised version of grant-aid is required as is
the abandonment of mechanisms such as service level agreements and
contracts. Funding also needs to be available over a significant length of
time if work is to be effective.
Particular attention needs to be given to enthusiast groups and the
participation of young people within them. There is a case for grant aid to
help groups to start and sustain activities suitable for children and young
people, and for support from youth workers.
Policies that require local groups to engage in the surveillance of, and
reporting on, young people must be avoided. As must any attempt to impose or
require adherence to the sorts of targets set out in Transforming Youth
Work.
Steps need to be taken to alleviate the bureaucratic and financial
burdens of policies around child protection and safety. One obvious area
here is the costs around CRB checks. Another concerns the cost of, and
difficulties around, the insurance of different activities.
The cultivation of associational life in schools requires special
attention.
Mark K. Smith
September 2004
© Mark K Smith 2004. First placed in the archives 2011.
