Blurring the Boundaries: Youth Work and Policing

archives

As I play around with what I might post on this revived blog I’ve been exploring what I might call pretentiously my archives – stuff I’ve written over the years, not yet consigned to the waste bin. An obvious dilemma is how well has such scribbling stood up to the test of time. I’ve decided not to worry unduly about this question. If the argument falls flat, I’ll just have to dust myself down and have a rethink.

With an IDYW dialogue event, ‘What is Youth Work?’ about to take place this coming Friday, November 2 in Birmingham I thought I’d revive this 2012 response to NYA’s call to make youth work training for police officers a more systemic and universal practice. At the time Fiona Blacke, the CEO ‘said she wanted to see more teachers and nurses, as well as police officers, trained in youth work skills. “They need to understand some of the nature of adolescents, how to create a relationship with young people and the tensions of being an adolescent in 2012,” she said. Blacke added that, by using youth work skills, police officers would have to revert to their statutory enforcement powers on fewer occasions. “It’s got to be a good thing,” she said.’

softpolice

BLURRING THE BOUNDARIES: Youth Workers as Soft Police or Vice-versa?

Rotherham Council has announced that two police constables have qualified with the council to become youth workers. The officers will work in partnership with the council’s youth services department and in youth centres throughout the area.

 
Thus the blurring of boundaries about what is meant by youth work and what constitutes a youth worker continues to worm its insidious way. When and where are our two constables youth workers? When and where are they coppers? Can they be both youth worker and copper at one and the same time? Funnily enough, despite the nowadays obligatory claim that the Rotherham initiative is trail-blazing, versions of these questions about the relationship between young people, youth work and policing are not new.

 
When I first came into the work in the early 1970’s the appropriate local bobby sat on the management committees for two of the centres, for which I became responsible. The post-war consensus that we were in it together was just about holding. By the end of the decade as unemployment rose and youth harassment became the norm we wouldn’t let the police across the threshold of our centres. In the mid-80’s my office was in the old primary school of Shirebrook, a Derbyshire mining village violently invaded and occupied by Her Majesty’s constabulary, playing its crucial part in intimidating the NUM’s opposition to the rule of the market. In the aftermath young people and the community rejected any involvement in the local Police Liaison Committees. As struggle died down I found myself in the 90’s working with the Inspector of Community Affairs in Wigan around the spectre of youth troubled ‘hot-spots’. We created a Youth Mediation project, employing a team of youth mediators, explicitly neither youth workers nor police, who refereed between young people, the local community and the local State. There was agreement. The roles of youth workers and police ought not to be confused. Youth workers ought to be on young people’s side. The police represented law and order, even when this law and order was demonstrably unjust. And, as an aside, I was a tutor on a year-long part-time youth worker training course in 1978 with two constables as students. Their desire to be part-time youth workers was ridden with contradiction but was not further confused by them wanting to be seen as hybrid Youth/Police Officers.

 
However, as you might know by now, today’s Chief Executives suggest that these qualms are but the dilemmas of a past best forgotten. Rolling out a ‘systemic’ programme of youth work training for police officers across the country is simply a good thing. Time has moved on. All that stands between young people and a trust in the police is the emergence of a couple of empathetic coppers. Forget Stop and Search, it’s now Stop and Smile. And their sensitivity will trickle down through the pores of the Police’s collective authoritarian psyche, even reaching its Metropolitan heart. Except that in the last few years some things don’t seem to have changed that much. Young people protesting against the end of EMA and the hike in tuition fees were kettled, frightened into feeling that resistance is career-ending. Whilst, by anyone’s account, last year’s riots were partially a consequence of the systematic hostility towards young people, especially black youth, displayed by these very forces of law and order.

 
None of this is to dismiss the important question of how the police interact with society, but this raises issues around race, gender, class, sexuality, disability as well as age. If we believe the police can be sensitised to the significance of these social and political divisions, the implication is that the whole workforce, not some scattering of token individuals, has to be on board. If we take race as an exemplar it is clear that this is an enormous task. The Metropolitan Police started race relations training in 1964. In 1984 following the Scarman investigation into the 1981 uprisings a revamped Community and Race Relations programme was put in place. Nevertheless, the 1999 Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence declared that the Met was institutionally racist. Over a decade later the 2012 riots following yet another black death in custody signalled at the very least that awareness training has its limitations.

 
None of which is to suggest we fold our arms and do nothing. It is though to suggest we proceed with caution and humility. On the contrary, we are told by the NYA in a fit of some pretension and hubris that, as well as police officers, teachers and nurses could do with an injection of youth work skills. What might be these mysterious skills unbeknown to others? “They [need to] understand some of the nature of adolescence, how to create a relationship with young people and the tensions of being an adolescent in 2012.” A deep breath is needed here. Of these three areas, only one is about skills, namely creating relationships. The other two relating to how we understand adolescence are about theoretical explanations, be they psychological or sociological. None of these – Communication Skills, Developmental Psychology or the Sociology of Youth – are the property of youth work. In one form or another, they are taught, for better or worse, across the people professions.

 
So, what’s going on here? For what it’s worth my feeling is that this exaggerated desire to be indispensable to others, stemming from a collective inferiority complex, is a result of abandoning the very basis of our distinctiveness. If we have been, still are special, it is not to do with some fantasy about our unique values, skills or methodologies. It is to do with meeting young people without the security blanket of compulsion or sanction. It is to do with meeting young people in a mutual exploration of what the fuck is going on. This creative dialogue knows no pre-determined outcomes, carries no guarantees. It is this authentic uncertainty that distinguishes youth work from other forms of work with young people, which demand the pursuit of prescribed outcomes. For the moment many within the youth ‘sector’ seem intent on brushing this distinction deep under a carpet of conformism. Evidently, in their eyes any engagement with young people can be called youth work – even an encounter on the streets between a young person and the police, provided the latter have done their youth work training.

[August 2012]

Outcomes, Outcomes, Outcomes – a last word for now

Back in September 2013 Marilyn Taylor and I wrote up an interview we’d recorded on the subject of youth work and outcomes. At the time I used it as the basis for a number of contributions to a range of events, notably the Youth Affairs Network Queensland annual conference in Australia, where participants seemed to warm to its argument. Since then in written form, it has languished on the In Defence of Youth Work site within the Background Reading page. However, the proximity of the recent Plymouth ‘Impact’ conference gives me an excuse to dust off the cobwebs and share the piece afresh. I don’t think it is past its sell-by date, but I might not be seeing the outputs for the inputs.

TTappeal OYC
Begging the audience to agree with me in Vilnius, Lithuania. Malcolm Ball and Pauline Grace looking far from convinced

It begins:

THREATENING YOUTH WORK: THE ILLUSION OF OUTCOMES

Tony Taylor, the Coordinator of the In Defence of Youth Work Campaign, is interviewed by Marilyn Taylor,  a youth worker for some years herself before lecturing in Social Psychology.

Obviously, I’m conscious that your hostility to the discourse of outcomes goes back a long way and is at the core of the Campaign’s founding Open Letter. Like it or not, though, the National Youth Agency [NYA] and the Local Government Association [LGA] have just this year produced further advice on justifying youth work utilising the Young Foundation’s [YF] framework of outcomes for young people.[1] Don’t the advocates of outcomes-based practice remain very much in the driving seat.

Too true and in danger of driving youth work over a precipice of their own making. Stifling in its repetition the mantra of outcomes threatens to drown out alternative voices. It is the taken for granted common-sense of our time.  Those who peddle its propaganda, argue that we need to show that youth work works, that we must define and measure what it is we do. They claim that there is no other option. They cannot allow that their utilitarian project might be undermined by a profound contradiction. Not everything that is vital to being human can be mathematically measured and compared, not least, as we shall see, the very make-up of our personalities ‘who we are’ and ‘who we might become’. Nevertheless, Bernard Davies was moved – following a piece of research he did a few years ago – to ponder whether there is a youth work manager left who might envisage a  practice with young people not harnessed to prescribed outcomes.[2] It seems we cannot contemplate an encounter with young people that is not scripted in advance.

It concludes:

  • A very recent and stimulating piece by Dana Fusco from New York, who spoke at a July IDYW seminar in London, explores the clash between the hierarchy’s desire for certainty and the shifting dynamic of practice across the professions.[24] She notes that social workers are calling for a ‘stance of creative ambiguity’, which is comfortable with nuance and uncertainty. Speaking of being a teacher she quotes Van Manen, whose description highlights the commonality of those I wish to describe as ‘democratic educators’. Such practitioners need “moral intuitiveness, self-critical openness, thoughtful maturity, a tactful sensitivity towards the child’s subjectivity,an interpretive intelligence, a pedagogical understanding of the child’s needs, improvisational resoluteness in dealing with young people, a passion for knowing and learning the mysteries of the world, the moral fibre to stand up for something, a certain understanding of the world, active hope in the face of prevailing crises and, not the least, humour and vitality.”

There are a few things I’d like to explore there, but it is an uplifting if daunting portrayal of what we should aspire to. A last word on outcomes?

I won’t prolong the agony except to say that the outcomes-led attempt to dissect and categorise our engagement with young people poses an enormous problem. We cannot deliver on its terms. Of course, we can continue to deceive ourselves and others. In reality youth work impacts on young people’s lives in a profusion of ways, to greater and lesser degrees. We can provide a range of evidence related to this potential impact. We cannot provide proof.  Our task is to argue afresh that many conclusions and decisions in the making of a democratic society will be provisional, the best we can make at any given time. In a crucial sense that makes them all the more important as nothing is ever decided for good.

Speaking of good in a different way I am conscious of coming across as describing a Manichean battle between Good and Evil, between those of us committed to democratic education and those committed to social engineering. In practice, there will be many in the Outcomes camp, who believe genuinely that they are ensuring the survival of youth work by turning it into a commodity, which people want to purchase. In doing so they believe they are retaining its values and skills. What seems to be woefully absent is a willingness to enter into critical dialogue about whether this claim stands up to scrutiny.

As Malcolm Ball put it at an IDYW seminar in October 2012, “ the youth work process I pursue hopes to enable young people to become the people they wish to be in circumstances not of their own choosing. It is not about a process of ideological modification guaranteeing outcomes congruent with the present society.”

The ideological clash, which cannot be avoided, is between an open or closed view of the future, between a belief that another world is possible and a conclusion that history has run its course.

The Outcomes agenda makes a pact with the latter, accepting the thesis that this is as good as it gets. It is the servant of a politics without vision or imagination, a politics without hope. For those of us, who continue to believe that humanity is capable of a much better shot at creating a just and equal society the means must reflect our hopes and dreams. Hence we cherish a prefigurative youth work practice founded on dialogue, doubt and democracy, even if we have often fallen short of this ambition.[25]

As we stated in our Open Letter the neoliberal ideology informing the Outcomes project “wishes to confine to the scrapbook of history the idea that Youth Work is volatile and voluntary, creative and collective – an association and conversation without guarantees.” We need to continue to think, improvise and organise against this threat and its illusions.

The full piece is to be found at Threatening Youth Work: The Illusion of Outcomes

————————————————————————————————————————————–

For a complementary analysis see also Jon Ord’s Aristotle’s Phronesis and Youth Work: Beyond Instrumentality, which appeared in Youth & Policy, 112 [2014].

Abstract

This paper attempts to address some of the fundamental problems which underlie current attempts to bring youth work to account. Firstly it is argued that the accountability agenda with its emphasis upon outcomes and outputs misunderstands the process by which they emerge. Rather than youth work being portrayed as a linear process, it will be proposed that there is an indirect ‘incidental’ relationship between what youth workers do and the outcomes that emerge out of a process of engagement; such that simplistic accountability measures are inadequate. Secondly, it is argued that given the essentially ‘moral’ nature of youth work interventions and the resulting outcomes, ie. whether their decisions and actions enable young people to live ‘good’ lives. We need to develop a methodology for youth work evaluation which reflects this. It will be suggested that much can be gained from an application of Aristotle’s concept of Phronesis, not least because of the importance placed on ‘context’.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

 

 

Recording Impact – thoughts from the Transformative Youth Work conference…and much more

Following on from my post, impact evaluation – a brisk intro, a few folk asked whether I could write up the scribbled notes I used for my half hour rant to the Plymouth conference. Well, if I’m honest, a grandson, my faithful dog, Glyka and a couple of sheep did. Others muttered, ‘if that bloke mentions neoliberalism again, we’ll puke’. Be this as it may, Jon Ord, the driving force behind the conference has ridden to my rescue, having painstakingly drawn together recordings of a large number of the contributions made over the two days. These are gathered together via the conference website and the link within the panel, ‘Recordings of Conference Talks’.

 

DSC_0275
The ‘expert’ panel leading an impact evaluation debate. Gill Millar in charge of the mike.

There are 68 recordings in total, reflecting a rich range of analysis and opinion. I would recommend trawling through the three pages to get a feel for this diversity.

For example, to give you no more than a flavour:

Accountability in Youth Work in the USA – Susan Matloff-Nieves & Dana Fusco

Reflections on the Impact of Youth Work in Finland – Juha Nieminen

Exploring youth work outcomes in Japan – Maki Hiratsuka (et al)

Evaluating young people’s participation in Australia – Tim Corney

Questioning the outcomes of youth work in Ireland – Mairéad Cluskey

The Impact of Youth Work in Finland – Lasse Siurala & Eeva Sinisola Juha

Youth work in Malaysia – Jufitri Bin Joha

The impact of youth work in Italy – Daniele Morciano

Evaluating Well-being –  Kaz Stuart (UK)

Centre for Youth Impact – Bethia McNeil (UK)

Evaluating Youth Empowerment in Spain –  Anna Planas & Pere Soler

Measuring Youth Work in Scotland – Susan Hunter & Kelly McInnes

The Impact of Youth Work in France –  Marc Carletti

Reflections on Malta’s National Youth Policy – Joanne Cassar

Building Bridges in Flemish Youth Work – Els de Ceuster & Jo Clauw

Enabling Spaces for Youth Activism in Egypt – Mohamed Yassein

Youth Work and Prevention in the Netherlands Judith Metz & Jolanda Sonneveld

My recording, if you’re interested, is to be found on the third page. As you will hear the first two minutes are taken up with Tony Jeffs, the chair, organising the masses pouring into the room!

Resisting Impact – a neoliberal tool of social conformity

Ta to Stephen Dixon of Marjohn for the photo.

The Politics of Youth Work and Impact Evaluation – a brisk intro!

neoliberalism

 

A few weeks ago I contributed to the Transformative Youth Work conference in Plymouth via a short seminar and as an ‘expert’ panel member. Here is the three-minute intro I offered at the beginning of the panel-led debate, ‘Critical Reflections on Youth Work Evaluation’. Obviously, it is sweeping, stuffed with assertions and short on jokes.

Contributing my longer polemical paper to some of the folk at the Transformative Youth Work conference. Ta to Pauline Grace.

 

INTRO TO CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON YOUTH WORK EVALUATION DEBATE, SEPTEMBER 5, PLYMOUTH

Other Panel members were Bethia McNeil, Centre for Youth Impact [UK], Professor Emeritus Dale Blythe [USA] and Dr Lasse Siurala [Finland]

The first thing to stress is that I have always sought to evaluate my practice in collaboration with fellow workers and young people themselves, stressing the positives, but always mindful of the uncertain, provisional nature of the judgements I made in endless reports across the years to committees of all kinds.

However, it is no secret that I am critical, indeed hostile to the discourse of impact evaluation that has come to dominate since the mid-1990’s, particularly so in the UK following the 2008 financial crisis. In my opinion, it is impossible to understand the agenda of prescribed outcomes, the fixation on data, the metrification of our practice outside of the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism over the last 40 years – what has become the common-sense of our age. In particular, I would draw your attention to neoliberalism’s spectacular behavioural modification project, its desire to privatise the way we see the world, to mould us in its own possessive, self-centred image. Few of us have escaped completely its clutches.

And, given youth work is essentially an effort to influence the character or the personality of a young person I do see impact evaluation as neoliberalism’s chosen method of regulating, monitoring and policing the unruly and unpredictable world of open youth work.

Its demands undermine a youth work founded on a voluntary relationship and improvised conversation with groups of young people’s choosing, ungoverned by time – a critical dialogue within which young person and youth worker are educated by one another. Impact evaluation violates the ‘intimate democratic’ space, the respect and love created, the willingness to listen, which are a prerequisite for fostering an authentic, public democracy.

As Filip Coussee puts it succinctly and memorably, this discourse seeks ‘to formalise the informal’.

As it is I think the impact enterprise is fatally flawed. Character is complex. It is not a mix of traits to be taught, inculcated and measured. But I’ll leave aside technical and managerial issues – could we improve this or that tool and the like?

In the end, my concern is with the purpose of our theory and practice, with the politics of youth work.

Do we wish to manufacture the emotionally resilient young person, who will put up with the slings and arrows of antagonistic social policies, accept their precarious lot and do the best for themselves – utterly individualised and responsibilised?

Or

Do we wish to play a part, however fragile and uncertain, in the emergence of a young critical citizen, committed to challenging their lot in concert with one another and indeed ourselves, struggling to forge a more just and equal society, believing that ‘another world is possible’?

Given the crisis haunting humanity’s future, I believe there is only one option. And having made explicitly the choice, then, by all means, let’s think about how well we are doing.

———————————————————————————————————

[My reference above to ‘intimate democracy’ is a touch presumptuous as I’ve only just begun, courtesy of Hans Skott-Mhyre, to explore its possibilities as a way of describing what we do. Its origin as a concept seems to lie in the writings of Rosi Braidotti, Professor in Media and Cultural Studies at the Utrecht University.]

If you want to look more closely and indeed critically at some of the themes in my argument, see this piece in Youth & Policy.

Treasuring, but not measuring: Personal and social development

 

 

 

 

Two Years On and still trying to resist neoliberalism’s embrace

 

education-is-a-process1
Thanks to thinksoup

Indeed it is two years since I rambled on about starting a new blog, alongside continuing in my role as Coordinator of In Defence of Youth Work – As time goes by, why another blog? In the event, the demands of doing my best as IDYW Coordinator coupled with personal upheaval meant nowt happened on here.

However, I’m about to withdraw from my role as IDYW Coordinator, taking something of a back seat in the forum’s activities. Indeed my last ‘official’ appearance as Coordinator will be at the forthcoming Transformative Youth Work conference in Plymouth,  September 4-6. I’ll be offering a paper, ‘Resisting Impact – a neoliberal tool of social conformity’ and be a supposed ‘expert’ panel member, reflecting critically on youth work evaluation.

Discussion Paper

Title: Resisting Impact – a neoliberal tool of social conformity

Key Words: (up to five) Neoliberalism, Youth Work, Measurement, Character, Resistance

Abstract: (maximum 250 words)

For four decades neoliberalism has mounted an extraordinary behavioural modification project, seeking to manufacture in its own image the self-centred, possessive individual, the satisfied, yet never satiated consumer. Few of us have escaped completely from its clutches. In its armoury of manipulation, we find the discourse of impact with its outcomes-fixated agenda and its relentless pursuit of comparative data, unveiled in the early 1990’s as the means ‘to do more with less’, nowadays crucially used as the means of changing how youth workers see both themselves and young people. The casualty in this shift to the imposition of a prescriptive, supposedly measurable script in advance of practice has been an open youth work founded on voluntary relationships and improvised conversations, ungoverned by time, which take place on young people’s terms and, dare we say it, for their own sake. The neoliberal impact agenda abhors the unruly, the unpredictable, the ‘wild spaces’, within which the youth worker and young person are educated by one another. As Filip Coussee argues, it strives ‘to formalise the informal’, to impose order.

Given youth work is never ideologically neutral and is fundamentally concerned with how young people understand themselves and the world they occupy we will tangle with two inextricably interrelated, immeasurable questions.

  • In what sort of society do we wish to live? What are its ‘characteristics’?
  • And, depending on our answer, what sort of ‘characters’, do we think, are best suited to either the maintenance of what is or the creation of something yet to be?

No surprises there!

In my next post, I’ll pull together links to a number of articles critical of neoliberalism’s insidious influence upon youth work.

 

As time goes by, why another blog?

ancient-philosopher

If you happen upon this new blog, Chatting Critically, and you’ve come across my thoughts as Coordinator of the In Defence of Youth Work web site, you might well wonder what I’m up to? Why do I need another outlet for my ramblings?

Three immediate reasons spring to mind.

  1. In my role as coordinator of In Defence of Youth Work [IDYW] through the eight years of its existence I’ve sometimes felt trapped between two stools. On the one hand I’ve worried that my perspective has carried too much weight as I comment on the undulations of the youth work landscape ; that I don’t reflect sufficiently [how could I?] the diverse opinions of those supportive of IDYW’s overarching commitment to a young person-centred, process-led practice. On the other I’ve also censured my more outlandish and dissident reflections, concerned that their appearance might damage IDYW’s image. All a bit tortuous, I know.
  2. In addition I’ve increasingly wanted to comment on the wider political scene, especially as the neo-liberal consensus fractures and alternatives, albeit fragile, emerge. Obvious possibilities for a rant are to be found within the turmoil besetting the Labour Party. Am I a Corbynista? More than a few good friends have pinned their colours to this particular red flag. And, am I alone in being deeply irritated at the almost Soviet style propaganda flooding the news channels, in which the parade of Olympian ‘heroes’ serves to mask the day-to-day experience of a deeply divided society? And it’s the fortieth anniversary of the Grunwicks strike, which I’d like to celebrate with a memory or two.
  3. For quite a long time I’ve fancied bringing together in one place bits and pieces from the past, which still seem to resonate. Indeed the title of the blog, Chatting Critically, harks back to my crucial involvement in the Critically Chatting Collective, whose existence through the eighties and nineties was a huge source of strength. Steve Waterhouse, to whom this blog is dedicated, was a challenging, anarchic voice in our debates and activity. As things unfold I hope to post some of our relevant writings from that period on this blog.
SteveDawn
Steve and Dawn fighting the good fight

Hence I’m hoping to use this blog as a medium for my opinionated musings on youth and community work, to which I’ll offer links on the IDYW web site plus my occasional rants on the meaning of life and why neo-liberalism, to borrow a phrase from my fellow Leyther*, Paul Mason, ‘doesn’t give a shit’.

As time goes by here’s hoping you might find stuff of some interest contained within and if you respond, I’ll be well chuffed.

*A Leyther hails from the town of Leigh, Lancashire in the North-West of England