Tag Archives: Catalyst

Framing Outcomes for Young People : An Initial Critical Response from Bernard Davies

Posted on by
1

CYPN in a piece, Tool to help youth sector prove its worth reports that,

Moves to boost investment in youth work have taken a step forward with the publication of a guide to help the sector measure outcomes.

Think-tank The Young Foundation has created the document to help providers demonstrate evidence of their impact, by creating standardised measurements across young people’s services.

It forms part of the work of the government-funded Catalyst consortium, which is charged with helping the youth sector adapt to the changing policy environment.

Over on the Young Foundation site itself Bethia McNeil, co-author of the research, in a blog, When is self-evidently good not good enough? outlines the rationale for the focus on outcomes related to social and emotional capabilities and challenges us to take ‘ a collective breath and blink’.

Whatever our failings we never fight shy of ‘collective breath taking’. Thus several of us in the Campaign have immersed ourselves in the research and come up blinking with deep reservations. As a starter for debate we are pleased to post Bernard Davies’s initial critical thoughts.

A framework of outcomes for young people

The Young Foundation

Some comments

The Young Foundation framework

The Executive Summary sets out the paper’s purposes and approach for the Framework of Outcomes for Young People it is proposing. It sees this as:

… designed to highlight the fundamental importance of social and emotional capabilities to the achievement of all other outcomes for all young people. It:

  • proposes a model of seven interlinked clusters of social and emotional capabilities that are of value to all young people, supported by a strong evidence base demonstrating their link to outcomes such as educational attainment, employment, and health
  • sets out a matrix of available tools to measure these capabilities, outlining which capabilities each tool covers, and key criteria that might be considered in selecting an appropriate tool – such as cost or the number of users
  • outlines a step by step approach to measuring these capabilities in practice, that is illustrated in four case studies that exemplify how the Framework might be used by providers, commissioners and funders.

 

The Framework describes itself as aiming ‘to address the key challenges in measuring impact on the lives of young people’. It seeks to do this in order to ‘support progress towards a future in which providers are confident and able to evidence their impact, and commissioners are confident to supplement their focus on reducing negative outcomes with an equal or stronger focus on commissioning for positive and sustained personal and social development’

 

Positives

  1. These comments on the proposed Framework start from the overall proposition that this is important work; that is, that we do need to be trying to develop credible ways on gathering and presenting evidence of youth work’s value to young people.
  1. The paper is a careful and thoughtful attempt to do this – e.g:
  • It makes clear that it does not see its approach as ‘stand alone’ (21).
  • It acknowledges the difficulties and constraints of any exercise seeking to get beyond the ‘easy’ measures of numbers etc and to capture ‘soft’ outcomes. (7)
  • It also acknowledges the difficulty of distinguishing cause and effect in these kinds of human processes. (14)
  • It attempts to see how ‘intrinsic’ (personal) and ‘extrinsic’ (‘societal’) outcomes connect. (14-15)
  • It stresses the need for any evaluation scheme to stay proportionate (eg to the size and aims of the piece of work) and to ‘fit’ the people and the tasks involved. (27)
  • In seeking outcomes for young people, it recognises the need to focus on groups and group work and to get beyond targeted categories. (19-20, 27)
  1. It gives some recognition to the role of youth work in the services and provision it is considering with references to significant sources going back to the 1970’s (the Manchester Wincroft Project – 7) and including the Occupational Standards for Youth Work (6), the Merton et al ‘Impact’ study (11) and the recent London Youth ‘Hunch’ report (14). (This has to be seen however in the context of a later apparent conflation of youth work with youth development – 34).

 

Queries and cautions

  1. In some (key) ways this is a document of its time – for example:
  • It offers only selective and uncritical quotes from Positive for Youth (6) which miss its constant refocusing on targeted work rooted in deficit models of young people.
  • The audience addressed is repeatedly that of ‘providers’ – especially ‘funders, commissioners and investors’ (7) – so that, intentionally or not, definitions of what is needed emerge as primarily top-down. Though at one point the paper acknowledges that ‘the young people you work with, and how you work with them, will influence your practical approach to measurement’, (27)it is therefore hard to see most of the time where and how young people’s own starting points for the work – or indeed the strongly affirmed broader ‘youth voice’ – are going to influence its precise shape and direction.
  1. Despite the reference to the need for group work and a denial that the framework is seeking to ‘decontextualise work with young people’ (20), the only constraints on ‘empowerment’ explicitly recognised in the paper are the interpersonal (families, peers) or the institutional (schools) (14). (The word ‘power’ itself never appears in the document). Young people emerge as a monolithic undifferentiated group: indeed, tellingly, a reference to the effects of social class in a quote from the research by Feinstein (which so influenced New Labour youth policies) is completely ignored in the follow-up comment which again focuses on ‘personal and social development’. (32) No reference is made to the current ‘youth crisis’ in employment, income, housing or transport. The perspective adopted is overwhelmingly individualistic and psychological, repeatedly envisaging ‘empowered, resilient young people, who play an active role in navigating (their transitions)’, without any reference to the wider structural obstacles to such ‘navigation’. (4)
  1. Such ‘transitions’ are another of the paper’s repeating themes. Young people, it seems, cannot exist as people,now, for their own sake but only as individuals in the making for some future broadly pre-defined roles – efficient worker, good parent, law-abiding and contributing citizen. (38, 49). Moreover though the paper’s aspiration is for them to end up with a wide and fulfilling set of ‘capabilities’, these (even the ‘creative’ ones) emerge ultimately as largely conformist, offering no explicit encouragement to young people to play socially critical or social change roles in their society. (19, 21).
  1. Despite its stated commitment to viewing young people’s personal and social development in positive ways, it is striking how often the paper falls back on examples about and references to avoiding the undesirable (anti-social behaviour, poor employment outcomes). As I read them, three of the paper’s four case studies assume targeted work.
  1. The paper is concerned not to present itself as the only way of identifying and presenting outcomes, suggesting for example that it is implemented ‘alongside other approaches such as case studies and witness testimonies’ (21). Nonetheless, in these circumstances the risk exists that hard-pressed managers and practitioners will use it in simplistic and uncritical ways and as the way of demonstrating to ‘funders, commissioners and investors’ that they deserve their money. A critical and continuing commentary and debate on the paper, including on its limitations, therefore seems vital.

 

Perhaps understandably Susanne Rauprich, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, which leads the Catalyst consortium is less cautious than Bernard.  CYPN reports that she believes the framework “will succeed in its aim of underpinning social investment work by enabling providers and commissioners to demonstrate the difference they make”.

She added that the youth sector often struggles to provide quantitative evidence of its effectiveness. “By addressing this problem, the framework will open the gateway for new finance and entrepreneurial capacity,” she said.

 

DRIVEN TO MARKET : YOUTH WORK’S SHEEPISH RESPONSE

Posted on by
Reply

The Market rules has been the mantra for over 30 years. With each passing year its invocation has gotten ever louder. Today, despite a crisis of its making, the Market continues to dictate, going so far, namely in  Greece, as to oust elected governments. Yet the Market’s dominance over our lives is being increasingly questioned. In the UK opposition to the privatisation of public services is growing, witness the campaigns against the NHS reforms and against the Work Programme. What has this got to do with Youth Work and Youth Services?

Well, to listen to leading spokespersons and organisations from within what they dub ‘the youth market sector’, it seems to mean little or nothing, indeed to be irrelevant. In this parallel universe the Market is embraced with unconditional regard. It is as if the present economic and political crisis is an act of God rather than the consequence of policies created by living human beings infatuated with the Market as the arbiter of human existence. Thus CATALYST, led by the NCVYS and NYA, talks of accessing new and bigger markets, of brokering investment, of establishing licence and franchise agreements, of being ‘investment ready’ and creating ‘business in a box’, all softened by references to ‘social’ and ‘young people-led’. Whilst UK Youth – at its national Social Network conference to be held appropriately at Canary Wharf – will be wheeling on experts to inform us that we need to find ‘the social entrepreneur within’ and put a monetary value on youth work to evidence impact, whilst Tim Loughton , the Minister responsible, will speak on empowering charities to work with business organisations. You get the picture. There is not even a sliver of contradiction in sight.

And it is this lack of debate that most disturbs us. Many within youth work seem to be sleepwalking into this marketised and privatised world. Perhaps it’s too late, but we do want to sound an alarm. Thus you will find below a flyer, inviting interested parties to be involved in organising some argument and discussion about what’s going on. Please circulate it widely and put in your pennyworth, even, indeed especially, if you disagree with our analysis.

—————————————————————————————–

DRIVEN TO MARKET: YOUTH WORK’S SHEEPISH RESPONSE?

Since the start of its campaign, In Defence of Youth Work has been contesting the imposition of the capitalist market’s demand for measurable certainty on the unpredictable character of a youth work shaped by young people’s interests and concerns. Our January meetings on the campaign’s future particularly highlighted the growing dominance of public services conceived of as ‘a market’ – a notion which cannot float free of either the grand Coalition strategy to embed private capital and the market at the heart of all public provision or its more specific desire to regulate the very character of youth work itself.

Indeed, the Government’s ‘Positive for Youth’ policies are explicit in their intention for youth workers in the future to operate within a radically changed landscape in which ‘results’ will have to be demonstrated in order that payments (and profits) can be made. In the process core features of the practice will be undermined as more ‘measurable’ targeted schemes for the ‘problematic’ and ‘risky’ are preferred over open access provision focused on young people’s own definitions of personal and social development.

Nonetheless, within the youth work field the social entrepreneurs are in the ascendancy.

  • The CATALYST consortium, with the National Youth Agency [NYA] and National Council for Voluntary Youth Services [NCVYS] at its head, propounds an unquestioning acceptance of the Coalition’s vision.
  • NCVYS plans to establish a social finance retailer that can pilot and then promote a youth sector specific social investment approach based on evidence of impact.
  • UK Youth – a bedrock national organisation with a proud history of demonstrating alternative ways of working to statutory providers – makes business relations the taken-for-granted theme of its annual conference.

It is not even as though the best of the business sector’s practices are being mimicked – such as a commitment to research and development as crucial underpinnings for risk-taking initiatives. Meanwhile, even as scandal breaks out over allegations of corruption at the-welfare-to-work giant A4E – and as major companies withdraw from work experience schemes – a precious autonomy is being sold for a few crumbs from the financier’s table of austerity. Little heed is being taken of the Carnegie Commission’s reminder that:

Civil society associations can never be just providers of services …civil society thrives best when it has an independent and confident spirit, when it is not beholden to the state or funders and when it is not afraid to make trouble.

This said, we know these are tough times. As workers are made redundant, services slashed and funding streams dry up, sheer survival is the name of the game. Projects and organisations are faced with little option but to be drawn into the market. Pontificating from on high looks easy. Grappling with reality on the ground is far harder – and exhausting.

With the drive to a youth market presented as a fait accompli, over the next months, with support from the ChooseYouth campaign and the National Coalition for Independent Action, IDYW is proposing a series of events at which, we can think through the implications of this predicament. We are inviting individuals and agencies to join us in sponsoring and contributing to these gatherings. We don’t expect uniformity of opinion. But, if you’re committed to a rich diversity of youth organisations, to defending pluralist youth work – and are up for a provocative debate, contact the IDYW Coordinator at tonymtaylor@gmail.com

Drive to the Market  – Word Version for printing and circulation

In our next post we will provide a list of links to relevant articles and materials.

Names of Catalyst ‘Support and Challenge’ Groups Revealed

Posted on by
1

In our critical post, Which Experts Inform the Institute of Youth Work Proposal, we expressed our concern that the names of those lending their expertise to the development of CATALYST’s pro-market strategy remained a mystery. We are pleased to say that this information has finally entered the public domain.

The rationale and terms of reference of the groups is to be found here on the NYA site.

We are told:

The National Youth Agency, through its work with the Catalyst consortium, has established two Support and Challenge Groups to act as independent advisers to the work being undertaken.

The role of the representatives on both the Workforce Strand Support and Challenge Group and the Institute of Youth Work Support and Challenge Group is to inform strategic and project plans, ensuring that the needs and priorities of the youth sector are taken into account.

It remains unclear as to how the Groups were established, but their make-up is as follows:

Institute of Youth Work Support and Challenge Group

Gill Millar (Chair) – Representing Regional Youth Work Advisors

Cheryl Garvey – BAYC

Alison Talheath – Representing ADCS

David Wright – Representing CHYPS

Ian Richards – Representing CYWU Unite

Marcus Isman Eagle – Independent contributor

Jon Jolly – Independent contributor

Steven Peck – Independent contributor

Kevin Ford – Independent contributor

David Howell – Independent contributor

Workforce Strand Support and Challenge Group

Tim Cooper (Chair) – Representing Groundwork UK

Keith Mogford – Representing Skills Third Sector

Sue Gill – Representing LSIS

John Thompson/Chris Hutchings – Representing DfE

Victoria Jones – Warwickshire Children and Voluntary Youth Services

Rebecca Edwards – Children England

Mike Counsell – Representing ETS

Andy Peaden & Sam Martin – Representing ADCS

Mary Kenny – Representing Regional Youth Work Advisors

Richard Davies – Representing PALYCW (formerly TAG)

Jane Bryant- Artswork

Carol Aspden/David Wright – Representing CHYPS

We are informed too that, amongst other things, the groups are:

To act as a conduit for communication between Catalyst and key employers and stakeholders in the youth work sector;

We must confess to being unsure anymore, who counts as a stakeholder, but hope that this means that these ‘independent advisers’ will make their voices heard across the field of youth work and will be able to resolve the contradictions inherent in their terms of reference, namely:

8.3 To support and actively promote consultation arising out of the programme across the youth work sector

8.4 To assist, promote and champion activities within the Institute for Youth Work project work plan or within the workforce strand work plan, and wider Catalyst workforce activities where appropriate;

Can you champion activities, you are being asked to question and challenge?

 To repeat, we’re glad this out in the open and look forward to hearing from members of the support and challenge groups as they report back to their constituencies, where appropriate, or in the case of individual contributors let us all know what’s going on.

 

 

Which Experts Inform The Institute of Youth Work Proposal?

Posted on by
1

The third theme of our January seminars was the emergence of the proposal that we need an Institute for Youth Work [IYW]. The flyer for the initiative tells us, ‘through the work of the Catalyst partnership NYA is facilitating a first phase consultation to establish the level of support for an IYW. The findings will then steer the path of work going forward’. We have already posted a response from Bernard Davies and Malcolm Ball, who attended on our behalf a meeting in late November, An IYW : In Whose Interests. It remains a very useful summary of the issues.

In our discussions we were caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand people began to argue as if an IYW was a taken-for-granted. The question being, how should it be organised? On the other some participants were reluctant to enter into detail. The unresolved question being in the present climate, what is such an institution’s likely role and whose interests would/should it be serving?

In fact the the pragmatic argument about what might be the constitution of an IYW – who might be in? who might be out? how might this be decided? – was itself overtaken by a broader perspective. More and more, to the fore, the renewed case for a revived professional association of youth workers was made. Indeed some argued that such an organisation is essential to keeping a future IYW under manners to the field. In terms of IDYW itself this is an issue that refuses to go away, although early on in our existence it was given short shrift. At our first national conference Doug Nicholls of CYWU/UNITE delivered a powerful and eloquent attack on the very notion of a professional association. Drawing extensively on the history of CYWU itself and its journey from association to union, he maintained that a return to the idea of an association would be an enormous step backwards. However those wishing at the very least to explore anew the possibility continue to express their concern that no present organisation represents the growing diversity of people, paid and voluntary, involved in youth work, however defined.

As this argument unfolded we began to suspect that arguing about the detail was perhaps back to front. The pressing concern revolved around where does a prospective IYW fit into the changing landscape painted in our previous post about Positive for Youth, ‘Delusion Dressed As Vision’? At this point we have to ask who is running the show? The answer is the Catalyst consortium, comprising NYA, NCVYS, The Young Foundation and the Social Enterprise Coalition. And those facilitating the consultation can hardly be said to be neutral. To be fair Catalyst makes no pretence as to its intentions. In its January stakeholder briefing the consortium, co-ordinated by NCVYS, explains.

About Catalyst

Catalyst is a consortium of four organisations working with the Department for Education (DfE) as the strategic partner for young people, as part of the Department’s wider transition programme for the sector. Catalyst will work to deliver three key objectives over a two-year period. It aims to strengthen the youth sector market, equip the sector to work in partnership with Government and co-ordinate a skills development strategy for the youth sector’s workforce. NCVYS’s partners in Catalyst are the National Youth Agency, Social Enterprise UK and the Young Foundation.

Let’s be clear. Catalyst is committed to taking us through a transition to a destination already decided. Catalyst is committed to the imposition of market forces on youth work and youth services. Catalyst is committed to persuading us and thence equipping us to operate in a social market.

Where does this leave the IYW proposal? At the very least it suggests that a critical caution is required. Given Catalyst’s ideological commitment to the market model, how might it see the role of the IYW? Might the IYW be seen as a future regulating body for the youth sector market? Perhaps we are being overly suspicious. Yet, to take a practical example, there are serious grounds for concern. In the Catalyst briefing we are told that the NYA facilitates an Expert Group, which acts as a support and challenge group to IYW and, we think, the wider Catalyst endeavour. This was announced at the November 2011 consultation meeting.  Support and challenge sounds well and good. However those present in November were disturbed to be told that the membership of the Expert Group could not be divulged. Three months later this is still the case. We have been told that the group comprises representatives and experience from statutory and voluntary youth services providers, from regional and national umbrella bodies, from trades unions, from membership and strategic bodies and from individuals. We are informed that individuals do not wish to be named as they are acting in a personal capacity rather than as representatives from their organisations. Being old-fashioned, we reckon, there is a simple time-honoured way of sorting this out – simply put ‘in a personal capacity’ after your name. Whatever it’s a rum state of affairs and hardly promotes confidence in the proceedings.

STOP PRESS

By coincidence within an hour or so of this post appearing we received a welcome message from the NYA, indicating that there is every chance that the names of both the Support and Challenge group for IYW and the Support and Challenge group for the overall strategy will be forthcoming.  A decision is likely to be made at a meeting involving the Department for Education next week. To use the new managerial lexicon such transparency would seem utterly necessary.

With each passing development the case for an open and pluralist debate about the relationship of the social market to youth work and youth services becomes evermore urgent. Debate about a possible IYW would be central. If Catalyst is so certain about the way forward, it is time to come clean and be part of a gathering, which is not stage-managed, but in the best traditions of youth work critical and democratic.

Replication in Action Programme : WHAT?

Posted on by
Reply

Fair enough I do put up some less than immediately riveting posts. Although, of course, I believe they are worthy of your attention and indulgence. But, come on, have I ever posted anything less likely to excite you than the latest on the NCVYS site?

Catalyst enters the new year offering another fantastic opportunity for its member networks:

Replication in Action Programme

This is an intensive programme over a nine month period which encourages growth amongst Youth organisations/enterprises through developing appropriate business models for replication. The programme consists of a series of workshops, master classes and expert coaching which supports youth organisations to:

  • make an informed assessment as to whether or not franchising/licensing is the most appropriate model for growing their organisations, and if this is the case,
  • develop a pilot franchise or licence package

A Replication in Action awareness event will be taking place on 26th January providing further information and insight into the content of the programme. To attend this event please complete the Social Franchising Suitability Matrix and return to holly.brereton@socialenterprise.org.uk by Monday 16th January to book your place at the event. To apply for the programme, please read the information pack before completing the application form, and return to the previously stated email address.

Without further comment – Replication in Action Awareness ! – it speaks volumes for where the voluntary youth sector is heading.

An institute of youth work : in whose interests?

Posted on by
2

Over the next week we intend to post the briefing papers designed to assist the debate at our seminars on January 19 and 20 to be held in London and Manchester respectively. We should emphasise that these are in no way position papers. They are exploratory and questioning in tone. The first to appear examines the proposal to set up an institute for youth work, mooted back in April by Catalyst, whose spokesperson argued, “as part of Catalyst’s workforce development strand, there will be an opportunity to explore the possibilities for developing an Institute for Youth Work. This opportunity has been discussed in the sector for years and would be intended to provide a strong voice for the sector and those individuals within it. The establishment of an institute would develop a much-needed infrastructure at a time when other structures are rapidly changing or being dismantled.”

Bernard Davies and Malcolm Ball attended a meeting in late November at the NYA held as part of a consultation exercise. Bernard has drawn together the threads of their reaction to the proposal. Zoom in a couple of times to enlarge the font size.

For discussion at the IDYW seminars: 19/20 January 2012

An institute for youth work?

Why? How? In whose interests?

Some brief history

As always the dilemmas posed by the proposal for an Institute for Youth Work (IYW) have a history. For example:

  • On the one hand – there was a long struggle in the 1950s and early 1960s to establish a joint negotiation committee (JNC) and training and qualification routes for workers who then need have no recognised training or qualification and, especially in the voluntary sector, were on very low wages, working very long hours, expected to clean their own buildings and being exploited in other ways.
  • On the other hand – within a few years of these struggles being substantially won criticisms emerged of a ‘professionalism’ which was seen as too protective of its own interests and as erecting barriers between its practitioners and the groups and communities they work with.

These contradictions, tensions and conflicts re-surface in the IYW proposal.

Some starting points for responding to the IYW proposal

Pro:

In their response to the IYW proposal, some committed IDYW supporters are increasingly concerned about the current vulnerability of provision and arrangements which they see as having helped safeguard youth work practice for over 50 years. These concerns include:

  • The government’s ‘big society’ emphasis on volunteers and volunteering which is undermining notions of skilled youth work practice developed through specialised training and carried out by paid staff, full- and part-time.
  • The government’s threatened ending of nationally negotiated salaries and conditions of service for some (?eventually all) public service workers which seems likely to further undermine the JNC for youth workers.
  • In the context of the National Youth Agency’s weakened financial and staffing position and its virtual abandonment of support for youth work as IDYW understands it, the increasingly uncertain future of the validation of youth work courses through the Education and Training Standards Committee (ETS) located within NYA.

These concerns are prompting some IDYW supporters including tutors within the youth work training agencies to back the IYW proposal, albeit sometimes reluctantly and with reservations. They see a development of this kind as potentially able to sustain some minimum standards for youth work practice and play the role of flexible gatekeeper in the way courses now do.

Con:

Some of the anti-IYW positions would appear to be rooted in a scepticism about any such gate-keeping, not least because, it is argued, this can too easily develop into a ‘professionalised’ drawbridge which only a qualified elite are allowed to cross. These reservations were expressed, sometimes very bluntly, during the NYA/NCVYS consultation event in November 2011 – particularly by voluntary and faith sector representatives. They also emphasised the contributions made by volunteers who, they argued – as do many in IDYW – may not have the expected ‘pieces of paper’ yet often provide high quality youth work.

Towards an IDYW position and response?

How then can IDYW seek to bridge the pro-gatekeeping/anti-professionalisation positions – to say nothing of the many others questions which the IYW proposal may produce?

  • One answer could be: it doesn’t need to. IDYW is after all a broad alliance of youth work ‘interests’ whose bottom line is its defence of emancipatory and democratic forms of youth work. Even this however does not – cannot – assume a handed-down and final definition of what such youth work is. With contradiction and dilemma embedded in the very practice, does IDYW need a single agreed view on whether machinery is needed to safeguard this and what form this machinery should take?
  • Another answer however could be that IDYW’s commitment to engage with the wider politics and ideologies increasingly threatening emancipatory and democratic youth work requires it to struggle with the contradictions and dilemmas inherent in the IYW proposal. At the very least, IDYW may need to clarify and then with others press for some minimum conditions which will help ensure that whatever emerges does not further undermine youth work as IDYW understands it and which could even contribute something to its defence? As this response would require testing the detailed proposals as they emerge, it seems worth interrogating the six ‘broad principles’ on which an IYW would be based which were outlined at the NYA/NCVYS consultation event.

The IYW ‘broad principles’

Principle 1: An IYW should support professionalism in Youth Work [capitals in the original] and its membership should be limited by the qualification level of the people participating.

  • How is ‘Youth Work’ being defined here? Based on whose understandings, experience and requirements? Young people’s? Field practitioners? Managers? The government’s?
  • How is ‘professionalism’ defined here? Only by ‘qualification level’? And/or by the nature and quality of the practice being carried out?
  • If the latter, who will set and assess the standards for ‘nature and quality’? How?
  • In any case, why does this not read ‘qualification levels’ [plural] - as a way of creating a flexible and perhaps progressive process for admission and therefore a variety of forms of ‘membership’?

Principle 2: An IYW should focus on the self-improvement and development of practitioners in order to improve the quality of provision for young people.

  • How far is ‘self-improvement’ seen here (even just taken-for-granted) as an individual(istic) process?
  • What about shared and collective routes to improving both ‘the self’ and the quality of provision?

Principle 3: Membership of an IYW should require the acceptance of a regulatory role with the power to give and revoke membership.

  • Who will the ‘regulators’ be? With what mandate? Given by whom?
  • What (range of) criteria will be set for giving, monitoring and revoking membership? Defined by whom?
  • How will ‘natural justice’ and ‘due process’ be assured within such arrangements?

Principle 4: Membership of an IYW should be necessary for a license to practice in Youth Work.

  • What precisely does ‘licence to practice’ mean in this context?
  • Why is it seen as necessary?
  • Why should membership of an IYW be a requirement for getting it?

Principle 5: An IYW should enable members to have a clear and co-ordinated voice to influence and shape policy that impacts on the profession and the lives of young people.

  • How open and flexible will the processes be within an IYW for determining the positions it takes up on the policies it is seeking to influence and shape? In whose interests will these positions primarily be decided? Young people’s? ‘The profession’s’? How will a consensus be achieved amongst these groups?
  • Indeed, why here do we need to talk about ‘the profession’ rather than, say, ‘youth work practitioners’ or even ‘youth work practice’? And why does ‘the profession’ come before ‘the lives of young people’?
  • In seeking to play this role, how will an IYW ensure its independence – especially from government but also from other powerful interests which may see it as a useful conduit for their ideas and priorities?
  • How will an IYW relate to and fit with other organisations and groups which seek to influence and shape policy?

Principle 6: An IYW should be based on a clear agreed vision for the profession of youth work?

  • Why does this appear as the sixth principle rather than the first? Shouldn’t the agreed vision underpin and shape everything else an IYW would do, not follow from it?
  • Again why is it necessary to talk about ‘the profession of youth work’ rather than its practice or its practitioners?
  • How open and flexible will the processes be within an IYW for defining such a vision? And whose will be the primary interests determining it? Young people’s? Or ‘the profession’s’?
  • And again –what definition of youth work is being assumed here?

Find here a Word version for printing and further circulation – An Institute of Youth Work?

Both our seminars will be small scale affairs, each open to about a couple of dozen people. Thus we would welcome supporters and critics placing their comments below.

I’m not sure where this fits, but see also a ‘parallel’ development and dispute across in social work, where a College of Social Work has now been set up – Gets off the Ground Perhaps our friends across in SWAN might enlighten us.

POSITIVE FOR YOUTH?

Posted on by
Reply

The NCVYS has produced a thorough and useful summary of the government’s Positive for Youth discussion papers: Overarching narrative for the youth policy statement, Department for Education (July 2011)

The summary plus questions to be discussed across its membership is to be found below.

Briefing on Positive for Youth discussion papers-1

However the neutral stance adopted fails to place the government’s proposals within the present onslaught on youth work across the country. The briefing was produced by the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services as part of the work of the Catalyst consortium. Catalyst is co-ordinated by the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services with the National Youth Agency, the Social Enterprise Coaltion and the Young Foundation. It is working with the Department for Education (DfE) as the strategic partner for young people, as part of the Department‟s wider transition programme for the sector. Catalyst was formed to deliver three key objectives; strengthening the youth sector market, equipping the sector to work in partnership with Government and coordinating a skills development strategy for the youth sector‟s workforce.