Has it reached its use-by date?

The current Australian youth work sector has a number of characteristics that have to some extent influenced the nature of the youth work training currently provided at TAFE colleges and universities in Australia (Bowie 2003). These characteristics include:

* High dependence on government funding

* Many small government-funded, community-based organisations

* Few large-scale residential therapeutic treatment centres

* Voluntary part-time management boards

* Workers requiring a wide range of generalist knowledge and skills

* A focus on youth rather than child and youth care

Individual workers in many small Australian youth services have to exercise a wider range of skills than individual workers employed in larger community-based youth organisations operating in Canada and the USA (Borden 2002). These skills included basic financial skills, fundraising, public relations and media skills, submission writing and policy development, political analysis and lobbying. Problem-solving counselling and group-work skills are also deemed necessary in such smaller agencies. In many instances the workers also have had to learn the skills to "manage" their voluntary management committees. In the larger organisations, these skills often reside in a number of specialist staff, such as the financial manager, publicity person or fundraiser. So youth workers in smaller community-based services often have to be "Jacks or Jills of all trades", which requires them to become "specialist generalists".

More recently the relationship of youth services to the government has been refrained by an economic rationalist agenda (Bessant 1997). The impact of economic rationalism within youth services is all pervasive and still growing and has many of the following characteristics:

* increasing privatisation of government services

* a decline in funding

* competitive tendering

* greater service accountability and "managerialism"

* the growth of "multinational" youth services

* a growing number of for-profit private sector organisations

* an increasing emphasis on early intervention, youth development and targeted rather than generalist services

* the imposition of "mutual obligation programs" and related breaching requirements.

I will look at the last four points--what I call the growth of "multinational" youth and welfare services often of a faith-based nature, the rise of "for profit" youth services, an increasing emphasis on early intervention and targeted rather than generalist services, and the growth of "mutual obligation" and related programs. I have chosen to look at these particular areas of employment and service provision as I believe that these are going to be the future growth areas for the employment of youth workers and other allied youth professionals. The growth in these areas, has, in turn, implications for the types of youth workers sought by youth services and the type of training and education in youth work provided through TAFE, universities and accredited private trainers.

These growing "multinational" services are large-scaled hierarchical multicampus services with specialist PR and funding staff. Such services often do not have the local contact with young people or loyalty or identity with the surrounding service area. In such services, generalist youth workers are often quite poorly paid or specialist youth-related tasks are undertaken by social workers or psychologists or other non-youth-work-trained professionals.

Also, there are emerging within Australia a number of small for-profit residential care organisations that operate on a fee-for-service basis offering a basic "baby sitting" service for troubled adolescents that have "worn out their welcome" in the smaller community-based, grass roots youth organisations. These for-profit agencies contract with the government to control and isolate troublesome young people from the mainstream youth services with few long-term strategies for the care and empowerment of such young people. These organisations offer little in the way of recreation, counselling or life skills programs for their clients and often have minimally trained staff.

There is also another growing group of for-profit, user-pays organisations now competing with the charity sector. These organisations see young people as economic units of production and/ or as consumers and they attempt to equip young people as entrepreneurs who can compete more vigorously in the market-driven economy. Workers in such services often need a range of skills not covered in current youth work courses.

Another emerging trend is the increasing emphasis on early intervention, youth development and targeted rather than generalist services. In the context of this article, early intervention refers to the provision of services and support to infants and young children and their parents and carers. Such an emphasis may lead to a situation where resources are redirected from youth to children's services, and the generalist skills of youth workers may no longer be applicable. Alternatively, former youth workers may be required to specialise in other non-youth work core areas, such as therapy or children's issues, as is the case with child and youth care workers in Canada (Denholm, Ferguson & Pence 1991). In addition, the youth development approach, if interpreted in narrow individualistic terms, may lead to programs that downplay the broader societal context and attempt to change the young person through "therapy, remedial education or treatment" (White 2002, p.19).

Finally, the growing imposition of "mutual obligation programs" and related breaching requirements within youth services runs contrary to the underlying principles of equity and access, social justice and empowerment espoused by many youth services, and taught within university youth work programs. Such approaches and requirements are ethically challenging for mainstream youth workers.

Thus these growth areas in the provision of services for young people require a range and type of youth service professional not currently educated and trained in youth work courses. Also, in many situations, such service provision requires practices that are contrary to the current understanding of the ethos and professionalism of youth work and youth worker training and education (Corney 2004).

What are the implications of these trends for youth work training and education?

Youth work training in Australia

As previously outlined, the needs of small non-government community-based services and the generalist all-round nature of the skills and knowledge required to work in such agencies have helped define the type of youth work training that staff looked for and the type of content offered in our colleges of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and university youth work courses. The first credentialled training in Australia for youth workers was provided at a YMCA college based initially in Sydney (from 1947 to 1963) and later moved to Melbourne (Ewen 1981). This college-based training was eventually taken over by what is now the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, one of the five Australian universities that currently provide youth worker education. Thus formalised, youth work training in Australia first came about through a community-based organisation, the YMCA. Partly because of this community orientation, the curriculum did not have a primary therapeutic focus. Over time the youth worker training provided in Australia, like the UK, has developed into a combination of one-to-one, group and community-work skills with indepth programming, therapeutic and treatment skills less prominent than in courses in North America. However, these new "growth areas" for services to youth create demands for a different type of youth professional and, possibly, a related need for a change in youth work education.

Currently in Australia, formal youth worker qualifications can be gained in two main ways. First, through TAFE colleges, which in many ways offer courses similar to the community college-based training in Canada (Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities 2000). These TAFE colleges offer a variety of introductory as well as one- and two-year qualifications in youth work. Such TAFE courses can articulate into the variety of youth work courses offered in universities around Australia. Students can also directly access youth work courses at five universities.

Another growing opportunity within Australia and overseas for youth worker training is through the Youth Work Education and Training program offered through fine Commonwealth Youth Programme Diploma in Youth Development (Commonwealth Youth Programme 2003). This diploma is offered within Commonwealth countries by 15 partner institutions and nine partner support institutions internationally. Some graduates from the diploma course have gained access to youth work courses within Australian universities.

What then are the implications for youth work educators of the changing nature of the youth work service provision and other challenges? One implication is a possible change in youth work curricula.

Youth work core curricula

With the growth of "multinational" youth services and for-profit private sector organisations, and the increasing emphasis on early intervention, targeted services and mutual obligation programs, youth work services and youth work educators are faced with a long-term dilemma. Do they adapt and provide services in these growing areas and develop new curricula to train workers for such programs in contradiction to the current underlying youth work course philosophies and practices of empowerment and social justice, as outlined by Corney (2004)? Or do such services and youth work educators stick to their original philosophies and approaches and risk being further marginalised as other non-youth work professionals step into these growing work opportunities?

Another possible option could be that the new competency-based approach to youth work as taught in TAFE could provide willing workers for these new positions while university-educated staff maintain their ideological viewpoint and do not seek employment in such new service areas. This is not to say that all such "multinational" and other emerging youth service types would not necessarily employ youth workers with an empowerment perspective. However, the conservative, employer-focused nature of competency-based training and the lower rates of pay for TAFE-trained staff may make such workers more "attractive" to such employers than university-educated youth workers.

A final option for university youth work educators may be to reject this binary distinction of either an empowerment-or competency-based curriculum and draw from both in order to develop a flexible, practical, reflexive and critical approach to youth work education. Such an approach would have some inherent difficulties in attempting to meld two educational systems and their differing ideologies but might also create new and innovative ways of presenting youth work education.

Which combination of these options should youth work educators and trainers accept and support, or will they in reality have no choice and be forced in the current economic rationalist climate to sacrifice ideology for pragmatics?

Competency-based training

Another direct challenge faced by university educators and TAFE trainers is the introduction of competency-driven curricula within the TAFE colleges and its articulation into university youth work courses. Up until recently the content of TAFE courses has been class and practicum based and largely content/curriculum driven. This has made it fairly easy for university youth work educators to assess TAFE course content and teaching pedagogy for articulation into university courses. However, more recently these courses have been developed into competencybased courses with far fewer classroom hours and a focus on competency outcomes that can be assessed in a wide variety of ways. Another major concern of the youth work "industry" has been the quite generic nature of the competency-based youth work courses now being offered in TAFE colleges. This has lead to a situation where many of the specific youth work skills found in previous courses have been merged with common core units across a number of specialty courses, such as juvenile justice or aged care. There is a danger that specific youth work skills may be lost in the more generalist, generic skills now being offered (Broadbent 1998).

In theory, such a competency-based approach can give a much more tailored, individualised learning experience for students but, in practice, giving appropriate accreditation and articulation to courses without common course content has proven a nightmare for university educators. Also, with diminished classroom hours, much of the previous numeracy and literacy support offered to TAFE students may not be as widely available. This lack of academic support for TAFE students may have flow-on implications for their ability to function well academically at university. There is also a small but growing number of private education providers who run some of these competency-based type courses in youth work sometimes with even fewer resources and less support than is available at TAFE colleges.

However, an even greater challenge posed by competency-based training for youth work educators is the clash in values and approach between the new competency-based youth work courses and the universities. The university courses in youth work are value driven, based oil Marxist, socialist, feminist and Freireian frameworks (Corney 2004), while the competency-based training TAFE sector competencies are considered to be value neutral (Australian National Training Authority 1996). Leaving aside the debate about whether competencies can be value neutral, the choice of competencies is largely driven by employers, without in-depth consultation with the field, and seems to be aimed at developing skilled technicians rather than ethical and reflective youth work practitioners (Broadbent 1998). Corney (2004) raises the question as to whether competency-based training in youth work will create a two-class system of youth workers--one supposedly value neutral and the other based oil articulated ideological frameworks.

Do we want a two-class system of youth work? If not how can this development be averted?

"Internationalisation" of youth work courses

Another challenge for youth work education is tire increasing internationalisation of university courses, often as income-generating schemes rather than from a perspective of social justice and access and equity. One negative is that such programs often attract only well-off students from the elite of their own countries, or students who have gone into massive debt to finance their studies. Australian universities are often not able to provide scholarships or direct support to students who might benefit from studying in Australia and also offer only limited assistance when such students commence their studies in Australia.

However, a positive aspect of this international push can be that our current ways of doing youth work practice and scholarship can be challenged by overseas models brought to Australia by such students, practitioners and academics. I know that I have been professionally challenged to reconsider my core values and approaches to youth work education and training through my exposure to other models of youth work and education from places as diverse as Africa, the UK (Nicholls 2003), Europe, Canada (Denholm, Ferguson Pence 1991) and the USA (Borden 2002; Krueger 2002). Also, the growing links formed with the Diploma in Youth Development by Australian universities will, it is hoped, help expand the positive aspects of the internationalisation of our youth work courses.

How then can we incorporate into our youth work provision and education a greater awareness of such overseas models and approaches in a mood of non-exploitation and mutual collaboration?

Has youth work passed its "use-by date"?

A final, and probably the most profound, challenge to youth work education and training concerns the future and relevancy of youth work and related training.

Jeffs and Smith (1999) raise an intriguing concern for youth work educators as to whether youth work is past its use-by date. They believe it is, and comment "[w]e have to recognise that changes in social attitude and processes lead to the decline and disappearance of certain activities and jobs. Youth work, much like whaling or lamplighting, is no longer required as a discrete activity" (p.23). By focusing on young people in particular, they believe that youth work can divide various groups who would be better off working together rather than being separated by moral panics about young people as victims, thugs or users. These moral panics in turn create fear among young people as well as among those who would not identify themselves as young people. Jeffs and Smith also accuse many youth workers of being two-faced. When challenged by economic rationalism, youth workers appeal to policy-makers and funders on the basis of solving the latest youth problem or policy issues while talking to young people in terms of participation, empowerment, engagement and social justice.

They suggest that informal education should take the place of youth work because it can work across various age groups that have some common circumstances, need, bond or challenge. In comparison, much youth work focuses on age or particular disadvantage. "We need to look to the possibilities of building upon shared experience rather than tapping into an assumed generational response" (Jeffs & Smith 1999, p.19).

Ted Dunlop (2003), a Canadian child and youth care practitioner and academic now based in New Zealand, comes to the same conclusion but from a slightly different perspective. He believes that " ... we must accept that, in an ever changing world we need to stretch our imaginations to articulate a new understanding of the defining characteristics of child and youth care" (p.6). He identifies models of working with young people little known in this country, such as the social pedagogue from Europe and the psych-educator from French Quebec as examples of professions "which allow flexible entry routes for practitioners to move along a continuum of work with young children through to adults with special needs" (p.7). The basic thrust of Dunlop's debate is that the impact and influence of youth work on policy and practice will continue to be marginal as long as we struggle to define youth work as a particular profession rather than as a confluence of theories, values and practice skills that should be integral to and shared with all youth-related workers.

Has youth work indeed passed its "use-by date"? What models do we need to develop to address these emerging challenges?

At this stage of a growing awareness of these issues I do not want to pre-empt the debate by offering possible ways forward but rather raise the difficult questions and stimulate wider debate in this and other journals.

Conclusion

In the face of the impact of economic rationalism, both youth service providers and youth work trainers and educators are faced with a number of issues and dilemmas. I have attempted to identify and present some of these issues in order to stimulate a proactive rather than reactive debate that may help set the future agenda for the provision of education and training for the youth services professions.

Let the discussion begin!

References

Australian National Training Authority 1996, Youth Work National Competency Standards, Community Services and Health Training Australia Ltd, Sydney.

Bessant, J. 1997, 'Free market economics and new directions for youth workers', Youth Studies Australia, v.16, n. 2, pp.34-40.

Borden, L. 2002, Educating youth development professionals: Current realities, future potential, Institute for Children, Youth and Family Studies, University of Arizona.

Bowie, V. 2003, 'Youth worker training: Teaching and learning from an international perspective', paper presented at the Promise into Practice the 7th International Youth and Child Care Conference, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.

Broadbent, R. 1998, The Community Services Training Package--Is it good for industry?, Victoria Institute for Youth, Education and Community, Victoria.

Commonwealth Youth Programme 2003, Commonwealth Youth Programme Strategic Plan 2003-2006, Commonwealth Secretariat, London.

Corney, T. 2004, 'Values versus competencies: Implications for the future of professional youth work education', Journal of Youth Studies, v.7, n.4.

Denholm, C., Ferguson, R. & Pence, A. (eds) 1991, Professional child and youth care: the Canadian perspective, UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.

Dunlop, T. 2003, 'Framing a new and expanded vision for the future of child and youth care work: An international, intercultural and trans-disciplinary perspective', paper presented at Promise into Practice the 7th International Youth and Child Care Conference, University of Victoria, BC, Canada.

Ewen, J. 1981, The education and training of youth workers in Australia: A discussion paper, The Office Of Youth Affairs, Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, Canberra.

Jeffs, T. & Smith, M. 1999, 'The problem of "youth" for youth work', infed.org, viewed 12 October 2004, www.infed.org/archives/youth.htm

Krueger, M. 2002, 'A further review of the development of the child and youth care profession in the United States', Child & Youth Care Forum, v.31, n.1.

Nicholls, D. 2003, 'Presentation from Doug Nicholls General Secretary of the Community and Youth Workers Union (CYWU) in England', The Forum for Youth Investment, viewed 12 October 2004, www.forumforyouthinvestment.org/presentations/nichollsd.25mar03.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities 2000, Child and youth worker program standard, Colleges Branch, Program Quality Unit, Toronto, Canada.

White, R. 2002, 'The pros and cons of early intervention', Youth Studies Australia, v.21, n.4, pp.16-23.

Vaughan Bowie examines the changing nature of youth service provision in a climate of increasing economic rationalism. One impact of this development may be that services require different types of youth workers. Bowie examines the implications and challenges for youth work training and education providers in responding to this and other crucial issues facing the field.

Vaughan Bowie has taught youth work at the University of Western Sydney for over 20 years. He has particular interests in the areas of youth worker training, workplace violence, male health and international youth work issues.