Professional Role of the Youth and Community Worker - Essay Example

?Work with young people has significantly expanded in the last few decades and today, the field, which was once the reserve of educators and social services, is open to several agencies seeking to intervene and improve the lives of the youth. The government has also taken an immense interest in youth work and although this has resulted in a number of challenges, which shall be discussed herein, there have been many improvements in the structure and accountability of youth work (Sheila, Roger and Donald, 2007). The term youth work has been subject to various attempts at a definition over the years in which it has existed, nevertheless pinning down a specific one is likely impossible or even impractical since its contextual scope transcends the confines of a single definition (Smith, 2013). From a functional point of view, several definitions can emerge for one: It can be viewed as a program or set of programs focusing on young people’s needs, experiences and contribution (Smith 2001). In another sense, one can describe it as voluntary participation in which young people become involved in social work. It can also be described as communal process through which the youth strive to foster relationships and associations among each other’s and members of the society (Davies and Docking, 2004) According to the minister of youth affairs, youth work is primarily focused on activities as opposed to formal or even informal education; these are constructive activities, which at the same time contribute to enhancing the youth’s leisure and enjoyment (Barrett, 2005). Contemporary UK youth work comprises the biggest non-uniformed voluntary youth organization in the United Kingdom with networks divided into around 40 areas representing wherein the major counties metropolitan areas and national areas are covered. Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland are also included. UK youth work is headquartered in Avon Tyrrell Activity centre and each year, over 20,000 young people spend their holidays undergoing a variety of training activities however for the sake of centrality and ease of access it also operates a London office. Youth workers are tasked with the responsibility of promoting the social, personal education growth of the youth who are typically aged between 11 and 25.The program also aims to actively engage young people in the redressing of societal inequalities as well as empowering individuals in society to a proactive role in tackling issue such as health, education, environment and employment. Fundamentally, the purpose of UK youth work is to enable the youths all over the country to live up to their potential and take cognizance of their achievements through social work which is facilitated in the many youth programs . Through youth work, young people can gain accredited learning awards such as junior achievement award and several other non-academic qualifications. The UK youth work program also provides training and the necessary resources to promote and advocate for high quality youth work especially through a youth steering group run exclusively by the youths which aims to promote the promotion of active citizenship through actively engagement with the administration of charity (Blacke, 2013). In addition, it is the onus of youth workers to assist young people in achieving the aims and outcomes that have been underscored in the directives by the government as they appear in under “Every child matters”.These categorically state that every child should be assured safety, health (both mental and physical) and enjoyment in their lives all the while making positive contributions and achieving economic wellbeing (HM Government, 2004). Critics of youth work have often questioned its true function and purposes and this is mostly fuelled by the apparent perpetual state of youth work identity crisis because of which youth workers are unable to define their core features. There is little doubt about the fact that youth work is a powerful educational and service provision tool, which provides the youth with critical skills to survive in today’s society (Verschelden, 2009). Nonetheless, there is growing criticism because youth works do not seem to reach out to the truly vulnerable in society. This has resulted in an ambivalent attitude towards them in most of Europe. The contention directed towards youth work is not altogether wholly justified. This is because the complaints arise not due to ineffectiveness but an inability to explicitly define their scope of operations. To cope with the identity issue, in some parts of Europe youth works and policy makers choose to ignore the detractors. But unfortunately this only leads to them becoming more isolated and ultimately ineffective since they lose touch with the grounded realities. However, in other parts of Europe especially the UK, youth work efficacy is determined through the measurable outcomes that they produce. Overall, the UK youth are faced with a collective identity crisis as they try to navigate in a rapidly changing environment characterised by an influx of popular culture and a barrage of information accessible through the technologically enhanced and liberalized media (Miles, 2000). Over the years, the institution of youth work has evolved in term of scope membership and the governance and control of activities. In the 19th century, when it was a relatively new idea, it was by large a philanthropic construct (Smith, 2002). In 1844, a several middle class young men led by George Williams came together to form what is popularly regarded as the first of UKs voluntary youth association the Young men Christian association (YMCA). Its primary aim was to unite and provide directions for the efforts of other Christian young men both for spiritual and commercial aspects of life (Binfield, 1973). In the early 20thcentury, Robert Baden-Powell formed the scouting, which came to be one of the most influential youth movements both in Britain and the rest of the world. However, most of the movements before the 20th century such as YMCS were mostly accessible to the children of upper and middle class background but the introduction gradually begun to include youths from all backgrounds (Freeman, 1914). The modern state of Youth work was set in motion by a government report named the Albemarle Report underscoring the importance of youth activities and recommending that government agencies take a more active part in their facilitation (Davies, 1999). This resulted in the statutory centre for youth affair and centres dedicated to youth activities were created all over the county with fulltime government staff (Para, 132). Initially the policy directing youth services was based on charity work and many of the initial guides and scouts were children of well-off families engaged in the charity work directed toward the “lower orders” of society (Schill, 1935). Consequently, the practice of youth work in the early 20th century was predominantly done of autonomous basis between different groups and there was no coherent national policy framework governing the institution (Davies, 2008). Owing to the absence of a mutual uniting and regulating policy the groups were often highly competitive and tried to outdo each other with each trying to dominate the field. Despite the fact that each organization had a set of principles specific to their organization, they seemed to be united in a mutual distrust for the state (Berry, 1919). After the 40s, the position of the state on intervention in youth work underwent a paradigm shift as it set about involving itself the running and monitoring of the activities carried out by youth organisations. Previously it had avoided active involvement in the Youth affairs since it did not want to appear to be attempting to create some of the monolithic youth organizations, which were currently in place both in Germany and Russia such as the Nazi youth (Roche, 2004). However, when they realize a second war was eminent, the government accepted the necessity of youth leadership and expressed this by mandating local authorities to pay for youth facilities in the years before the Second World War. A series of circulars and policy statements by the government in 1942 required that all 16 and 17 year old in the county had to register at their local ministry of labour office. This was to secure a contract between the youth service and labour office albeit not compulsion for recruitment to the former (Board of Education/Scottish Education Department, 1943). As a result Britain came from the war with a relatively functional youth service. This was especially prompted by the clauses inserted into the education act of 1944 requiring local authorities to secure leisure time occupations for the recreation of the youth. In 1960, in the process of creating a state framework for youth work, Albemarle report was presented containing recommendations that Lady Albemarle assumed the government would be willing to accept. Consequently, the minister of education endorsed it in its entirety on the very day it was released. Among its proposals was the institution of a national policy framework for youth services, identifying the role of local authorities as to determine policy in their respective areas as well as see to the provision of the necessary facilities. However, this was to be done only in collaboration with the voluntary bodies involved, the role of the central government involved vetting the performance of local authorities in their fulfilling the dictates of the 1944 education Act (Roche, 2004). Margaret Thatcher who was the minister for education in the early 70s later instituted extensive changes in this policy. She redirected youth works attention towards targets defined by the state such as “social need areas”. This refinement drastically narrowed down the focus of the youth’s works after 1997. The labour party followed Thatcher’s approach to youth’s services and further reduced the scope of its activities by limiting it’s to only activities whose outcomes were measurable (Roche, 2004). In 2004, the youth service which had looked after the interests of and defended youth work since 1939 was dissolved and in its place the generic concept of youth service was affixed. The situation seemed to increasingly grow worse as the government became fixated with the idea of positive and constructive youth work displaying a highly suspicious attitude towards unstructured efforts which was deemed to be wasteful. The institution of youth work has for the last few years been faced by a myriad of challenges that threaten to destabilize and significantly reduce its effectiveness (Davies, 2008). One of the primary concerns facing many youth workers and their immediate managers is the fact that they appear to be operating from a deficiency rather than potential based model. Today, overriding expectation is placed on staff by higher powers along with non-resistible budget calls which involved the stopping of child abuse as well as prevention of juvenile crime. Furthermore, the staff running youth work today is mostly from child care protection and youth from offending backgrounds and most of them have no understanding nor are they sympathetic to youth work. Recent reports by private organisations indicate that the cuts to the youth budget in recent years due to austerity measures have resulted in a decline of services provided through youth work. As result, many programs under the institution have been discontinued resulting to lost opportunities for youth development (Taylor, 2007). Youth service personnel training has equally been frustrated by the cuts implying that youth workers are not adequately prepared to deal with the complex situations facing young people today. This has led to marked increase in the level of crimes by youth such as gang violence, drugs, and other socially unacceptable behaviour since the systems that were keeping them in check have gradually been withdrawn or redirected. In addition, there is increased pressure from government that the activities needs must be targeting disadvantaged in community and the objectives must be positive and constructive. This is a radical change from what it was assumed to be an unstructured youth work. This has resulted to the reduction in the developmental and intrinsic activities, which used to result from human interaction in the past when youth would work together as teams on activities both for the result and the enjoyment of actually doing it. The youth centred agendas are gradually being watered down and in their place strict government policy is enforced. Consequently the compelling social force that brought youths together is no longer apparent since the only activities the youths are supposed to engage in are those mandated by policy makers. The youth workers rarely get to interact with each other and they are constantly kept on their feet by numerous demands to come up with “appropriate” agenda and objectives none which involve anything that would amount to personal enjoyment. The departure from an environment in which leisure was integrated with work (work and play) so to speak to a formal and structured and bureaucratic one has had a negative impact on youth’s voluntary attendance since they do not feel motivated to join up (Margo and Dixon, 2006). Nonetheless, the program has had and still has several opportunities to improve the youth’s life by using the already existing framework to strengthen the influence of the young people by providing them with services and leverage for decision making as well as personal and collective growth. Such an attempt had been made in retrospect when the youth opportunity and capital funds were instituted in 2008. This and similar ventures can be tried to provide the youth with more opportunities for personal and professional growth (Batsleer, 2008). Arguably, the biggest opportunity that youth work has is the fact that there is already an existing structure that has been developed for over a century and through which youth activities can be planned and mobilized. However, for this to be successful, the government must loosen the rigidness with which it currently control youth work making it appear to be more of a “serious” and anti-fun thereby discouraging youth volunteerism (Dean, 2013). There is hardly a country in the world with an infrastructure and culture for youth development that is as developed as the UK and if measures are taken to make the system more youth centric, the program would ultimately be more successful and influential in the long run. People take part in youth work for a variety of reasons, mostly they are driven by certain unique political, social or personal ideological perception of their environment and themselves which directs the course of action they chose to follow (Cooper and White, 1996). For example, some youth workers prefer to focus on provision of immediate needs such as food, shelter and clothing. Others opt to deal with long-term issues such as job creation, land rights and affirmative action on matters such as gender and sexuality. Ultimately, the method adopted vary considerably just like the work context. As a result several youth policy makers and work come up with frameworks or models to help manage and carry out their activities effectively. Although the models are often varied there are some basic characteristics that apply to most professional models of youth work, these include: A problem definition; this is a detailed description of the problem they intend to tackle along with the parameters regulating the steps that can be taken to solve it The contextual view by the worker which enables the worked to understand the different social settings in which they operate The framework model must have a set of core values which under pins its principles and act as a beacon and regulators for the workers actions Motivation for intervention: This is the means by which young people will be inspired and encouraged to become part of the solution The kinds of interventions should also be listed down so that when the time comes to take action, there will be an operation guideline as well as contingencies Reference List Albemarle Report 1960.,The Youth Service in England and Wales, London, HMSO. Barrett, S. 2005, Youth work must lift its sights. Young People Now, 7-13. Batsleer, J. 2008. Informal Learning in Youth Work. London: Sage Berry, T. W., 1919, The Training of Youth. London, T. Fisher Unwin, Ltd Binfield, C., 1973. George Williams and the YMCA.A study in Victorian social attitudes, London: Heinemann. Blacke, F.2013. So what does a youth worker do, exactly? The Guardian. [Online] Available at: Board of Education/Scottish Education Department, 1943, Youth Registration in 1942, London, HMSO. Cooper T. and White R. 1996. Models of youth work intervention. Youth Studies Australia . [Online] Available at: http://www.acys.info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/64519/p30_-_T._Cooper_and_R._White_-_December_1994.pdf Davies, B. 1999.History of the Youth Service in England Vol. (1) and (2) Leicester Youth Work Press. Davies, B. 2008.Defined by history: youth work in the UK. [Online] Available at: http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/documents/EKCYP/Youth_Policy/docs/Youth_Work/Research/Davies.pdf DEAN, J., 2013. Manufacturing Citizens: The Dichotomy Between Policy and Practice in Youth Volunteering in the UK.Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(1), pp. 46-62 Freeman, A, 1914, Boy Life and Labour, London: King and Son HM Government 2004.Every Child Matters: Change for children. London: Department for Education and Skills. Miles, S. 2000. Youth Lifestyles in a Changing World.Buckingham: Open University Press. Roche, J, Tucker, S., Flynn, R. and Thomson, R., 2004. Youth in Society: Contemporary Theory, Policy and Practice. London: Open University Schill, P. H., 1935, The History of the Ardwick Lads’ and Men’s Club, Manchester: J. Ellis Benson Ltd Sheila, C., Roger, H. and Donald, M., 2010.Working with young people.London: Sage. Smith M. K., 2002, 'Hannah More: Sunday schools, education and youth work. The encyclopedia of informal education, [Online] Available at: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/more.htm. Last update: 28 December 2007 Smith, M. K. 2013. What is youth work? Exploring the history, theory and practice of youth work, the encyclopedia of informal education, [Online] Available at: www.infed.org/mobi/what-is-youth-work-exploring-the-history-theory-and-practice-of-work-with-young-people/ Smith, M.,2001. Definition, tradition and change in youth work. Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Taylor, A., 2007. The youth service black hole. Community Care, (1666), pp. 13. Verschelden G. 2009. The History of Youth Work in Europe: Relevance for Youth Policy Today, Volume 1. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Read More