Introduction
For global communities to prosper, the world to develop, and each new generation to surpass the previous ones and have stable mental and physical health, society needs to care better for the youth. Unfortunately, due to the inability to completely address the high prevalence of poverty, racism, discrimination, various addictions, and low access to quality medical services, numerous teenagers are forced to have immoral or poor lifestyles. Many parents cannot or do not care enough to provide their children with everything they need, give them appropriate moral values, and ensure they have a chance for a promising future. Thus, it becomes the task of youth centers, which can use different approaches to developing and supporting adolescents. Since there are beneficial and essential principles of youth work, it is possible to critically analyze whether outreach events in communities and members-only issue groups correspond with them.
Critical Analysis of Outreach Events in School or Community
Outreach events and activities are the first to be evaluated and analyzed in this paper. In the youth work approaches matrix (Fig. 1 in Appendix), they are located in section A, organized outside the center, and under strict control. Such activities are primarily conducted in partnerships with governmental agencies, other communities, municipalities, organizations, and other facilities, which make the event both legal and practical, and provide access to the required resources (NTC Corporate, 2022).
It is advantageous when these events are planned while inspired by secular texts, offering children opportunities to explore God’s world (Borgman, 2013). Such collaborations typically make outreach activities highly impactful and significant, enabling the youth to feel accepted, enhance their skills and knowledge, and gain valuable experiences. This approach to youth work corresponds with most principles but might fail to address some. For instance, a great principle supported by most outreach meetings is the need for youth workers to consider and address the starting levels of their children’s development and their needs and interests (Davies, 2010).
As indicated by the National Youth Agency (2023), youth work should be based on engaging teenagers and focusing on their growth and learning through primarily educational and enjoyable activities. When organizing outreach community events, most youth workers put a lot of effort into finding supporters, ensuring safety measures, and ensuring the intervention is beneficial and positively impactful. For instance, in a case study described by In Defence of Youth Work (2010), youth workers organized a film-making event accompanied by an educational excursion to a prison. Therefore, when such efforts are put into the process, one might be certain that youth workers ensure that the activity is enjoyable and responds to the children’s needs.
At the same time, even considering the youth center’s focus on the interests of young people when planning an outreach event, it is questionable whether the participants can engage in decision-making. This is one of the fundamental principles of youth work requiring “tipping balances of power and control in young people’s favour” (Davies, 2010, p. 3). When preparing for an outreach event, children may have some influence and power regarding the program they want to engage in. However, it is often challenging for youth workers to include young people in organizing.
Thus, these activities may fail to correspond with another principle of developing responsibility, control, and confidence in children (NYA, 2023). For instance, in another case study, kids from a youth center wanted the workers to take them on a bike ride or organize a football tournament trip, but were told they needed to plan and prepare these activities themselves (IDYW, 2010). This is an excellent example of developing responsibility, resilience, and character in young people. If they can be involved in organizing at least some outreach events, this is highly recommended.
Critical Analysis of Members-Only Issue Groups
The second youth work method in the matrix, located in section D, is characterized by indoor settings and encourages a high level of initiative among young people. This approach seems efficient and valuable, but it involves only a limited number of teenagers, who were selected based on some characteristics.
For example, in a case study explored in the document by IDYW (2010), a youth worker named Kimberly organizes a membership-only group for young women travelers. Kimberly is aware that such traveler and gypsy communities face numerous social stigma, stereotyping, and discrimination issues. She aims to indirectly support these girls and their mothers by helping their children (IDYW, 2010). Although her involvement appears to be highly effective and yields valuable results, one might argue that such an approach does not align with all the principles of youth work.
First, it is essential to evaluate whether such groups can consistently adhere to a holistic approach. According to the National Youth Agency (2023), youth workers must pay specific attention to children’s developmental and physical needs and starting points to organize further involvement. It is essential to address the different spiritual, physical, and emotional needs of the youth and motivate them to surpass their starting points (Davies, 2010).
These groups typically focus on one or two characteristics, as seen in the case study where the center organized a group for traveler girls aged 11-16 (IDYW, 2010). Therefore, paying attention to the members’ unique needs is often challenging or impossible. To be more precise, 11-year-old and 16-year-old girls may require different levels of support and guidance.
Further, it is questionable whether such a membership-only meeting can truly promote the values of diversity, inclusion, and equity. One excellent benefit of the approach under question is that it is used when youth workers strive to increase members’ confidence, self-esteem, and social skills (South, 2015). Nevertheless, being grouped by a specific criterion, these kids are again reminded that they have this characteristic that distinguishes them from others. In the case study, such criteria were the youth’s sex (females only) and status (travelers), and youth workers helped these girls become proud of themselves (IDYW, 2010).
Unfortunately, such improvements may or may not occur in members-only groups with children from low-income households. The bright side is that organizations like The Boys’ Brigade (2023) clearly establish and maintain a culture of welcome and equality. Although only boys can attend most of their groups, there is no stereotyping or discriminatory behavior against females among them. Therefore, adherence to the mentioned principle depends on each youth center.
At the same time, this approach aligns with many other youth work principles, making it both efficient and ethical. Firstly, as IDYW (2010) and Davies (2010) recommended, meeting participation is entirely voluntary, and teenagers can play a significant role in decision-making. In these groups, it is key for youth workers to develop secure and trusted relationships with adolescents (Davies, 2010). Eventually, being united with other kids helps the youth develop social skills, become more responsible for themselves and others, and engage in individual and group activities, which are also the principles of youth work.
How These Contrasting Approaches Shape My Leadership Practice
These two effective methods of working with the youth inform my own practice. As a youth worker, I strive to balance my approaches, mostly selecting those established on cooperation between the kids and me. Therefore, SU church groups are a great example of an event that can be improved by considering outreach community activities and members-only issue groups.
According to Borgman (2013), it is essential to let faith guide the community work. I believe that such an approach enables young people to trust youth workers, allowing us to teach and learn together. The method of community outreach activities proves that taking more control over our youth center events might be beneficial in some cases, allowing kids to relax and enjoy themselves without the need to participate in organizational processes. At the same time, members-only issue groups inform me about the importance of balancing the concepts of inclusion, diversity, and exclusiveness.
Conclusion
The two contrasting approaches explored in the paper have advantages and disadvantages. While addressing the interests and needs of youth, outreach activities may fail to allow them to demonstrate control, responsibility, and resilience. Furthermore, members-only issue groups are ideal, as they are safe and adhere to the principles of trust and voluntary participation. However, it is possible that stereotyping against uninvolved members is developed in some groups. These approaches inform my practice, allowing me to incorporate the best aspects while addressing their weaknesses.
References
Borgman, D. (2013) Foundations for youth ministry: Theological engagement with teen life and culture. Baker Academic.
The Boys’ Brigade. (2023). Our vision, mission, & values. Web.
Davies, B. (2010). What do we mean by youth work? In J. Batsleer et al. (Eds.), What is youth work? (pp. 1-6). SAGE Publications.
In Defence of Youth Work [IDYW]. (2010). This is youth work: Stories from practice. Web.
National Youth Agency [NYA]. (2023). Youth work. Web.
NTC Corporate. (2022). The importance of a school outreach program. NTC. Web.
South, J. (2015). A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing [PDF document]. Web.
Appendix
Table 1 – Youth and Community Approaches Matrix: Descriptions and Shaping Factors
