The social and personal development of the young people through the informal interventions is an important undertaking for the youth. It comes with many benefits including the building of social capital in the community. Social learning theory is, therefore, incorporated into the policy to enhance the efficiency of the policy in the achievement of goals. This report purposes to discuss youth work in relation to social policy. It will also show how the social learning theory is embedded in the policy for the education of the youth. Finally, the report will discuss the professional responses related to the policy, and how it is practiced.

1. POLICY CONTEXT: EDUCATION AND SOCIAL POLICY

The cries for the incorporation of youth work in social education can be traced to the 1960s (Davies 2013). Davies emphasizes on the value of social education in the corporate life of the youth, as they are prepared go through life in their adulthood. In the years of 1960s, policy-makers sought to incorporate youth services in the education policy. A major step in incorporating youth work in education and social policy was realized in 1969. The 1969 state paper stated clearly that the goal of engaging the youth in social work was to make sure they benefited through social education (Davies 2013). By the year 1974 and 1975, bills were for introduced and accepted for the provision of social education. It was viewed as a matter of urgency, and though many stakeholders didn’t see the sense in it, they later realized its importance.

The government has prioritized several aims and themes that social education and youth work should achieve. According to McNeil, Reeder and Rich (2012), having positive relationships is one of the aims of empowering the youth to participate actively in social work. Reports show that the youths who engage in social work have shown a lot of improvement in their relations with family members and other people. Economically, youth engagement in social work has a great impact in career success. McNeil, Reeder and Rich (2012) assert that career success has been noted in the majority of the youth who engage in social work. This starts from another outcome of youth work, which is achieving in education. Youths who engage in social work have an opportunity to interact with others. Through this interaction, they get inspiration, and they have been found to improve greatly in education. Apart from these, involvement of the youth to social activities has been of benefit to their health. McNeil, Reeder and Rich (2012) states that; this engagement has enabled the youth to have healthy living, enjoyable activities, and meaningful lives.

The priorities for the government in youth work are derived from the needs of the youth. A major priority of the government is improving standards for all the youth, especially in educational performance (Department of Education 2012). The government also aims at increasing performance and equity, geared towards reducing the performance gap. This is geared towards closing the existing gap between the highly achieving and the lowly achieving young people. The third priority by the government is the promotion of informal education in the education workforce (Ogain, Lumley and Pritchard 2012). This is geared to ensuring that young people’s life skills are improved as they grow. In line with this, the government also aims at improving the enabling environment that will see informal education promoted. To ensure this succeeds, the government also has prioritized the transformation of non-formal education management. This will assist in the achievement of goals aimed at promoting informal education.

To evaluate the impact of youth work to them and the society, a framework process has been designed to ensure that it is monitored (Merton 2004). The framework considers the objectives of youth work, and evaluates the impact from these objectives. Then they consider the very relevant outputs and outcomes that the objectives wanted to achieve. Lastly, they consider the people and organizations they have been working with, and evaluate the outcomes based on them. This assists in knowing how the programme has performed, and drawing a future plan on the areas that need improvement.

2. THE SOCIAL THEORY EMBEDDED IN THE POLICY

Social capital is embedded in the norms of reciprocity, or doing something for one another, through social networks (Bourdieu 1986). It operates with the premise of the value of social networks. The incorporation of youth work informal education in education operates in the same manner, with the aim of tapping the value of social networks, to enhance the productivity of the youth (Brooks 2013). The operation of social capital is not embedded in the feelings that people get from it. Rather, it targets the benefits of engaging in a social network. These benefits include information, flow of trust, and cooperation that arises from the social networks. Coleman (1990) asserts that the double benefit of social capital is to create value for the by-standers, as well as the people who engage in the connections.

Informal learning and social capital are inter-connected. They take place through the reciprocity of social capital. In the context of youth work, informal learning is learning through community involvement (DFE 2011). This encompasses involvement in activities that engage other people. These people mostly have similar interests in life. In the context of youth work, there is a flow of information as people work together, and they benefit from the advantage of mutual aid. In this cultural capital, people are able to interact as they work together, and exchange ideas about the future. They also learn about jobs, and most of them change their perceptions about other people. According to Bourdieu (1986), social capital enables people to bridge networks with others. This is very beneficial to them in the future search for fortunes. This is because people engage in collective action, which enables the strengthening of the already existing networks. On the same note, informal learning, which allows learning through participation of a group, allows the youth to grow to be all-rounded individuals that are able to fit well in the society. Coleman (1990) agrees that informal learning, which is an extension of learning beyond the classroom, has enabled the youth to benefit from the talents and the skills of others, adding a lot of value to them.

Measuring social capital and informal learning pose conflicting situations in many areas. For example, social capital and its benefits may happen whenever there is a gathering of people without a formal organization. It does not require close monitoring for its benefits to be realized. For formal education, it has to be monitored clearly for its benefits to be realized. It operates from set objectives. According to (Brooks 2013), social capital is limited to personal social networks, as per the willingness of the individual, while informal learning is organized. In this area, the government has also intervened through the National CitizenService for the provision of business skills to the youth (DFE 2011). Unlike youth work, which benefits the participants and the by-standers, this programme is geared to developing only the participants. Its scope is limited to skills. It is not as wide as youth work, because youth work benefits the whole concept of a youth person, in all aspects. For example, this programme will have a big impact economically, while youth works benefits economically, socially and politically.

3. PROFFESSIONAL RESPONSES AND HOW THE POLICY IS PUT IN PRACTICE

Youth work is like a scheme whose inputs, outputs and outcomes need to be measured and considered for evaluation. This shows that these aspects need to be considered before the programme is implemented, so that goals and objectives can be set, and desirable outcomes determined. Davies (2013) advises on having a mechanism of measuring outputs and outcomes to be able to monitor any changes, as well as, to determine the efficiency of the programme. According to Mphongo (n.d), and output is put aside to assist in the youth service, to make sure that a desirable outcome is realized. In consideration of these, the youth who volunteer in youth work is inputs. Funds are an essential input in this work. Without money, this work cannot be carried out. The other input is time. The youths who participate in youth work lend one of their very valuable resources, which is time (Jozwiak 2013). Other inputs include research base, technology, partnerships and technology.

On the other hand, outputs refers to the products created, or the activities carried out by the stakeholders of youth work, including the youths themselves, decision makers or populations. It is, in other terms what is done, or what is offered by the programme. Jacques (2011) advises that, for good output to be realized, the planning has to consider the target audience, and have a clear outline of objectives. Also, it is important that the planners be knowing who will be the participants, and they are going to participate in what capacity. The outputs lead to outcomes. In lieu of this, outcome is used to explain what happens to the service user. McNeil, Reeder and Rich (2012) outline some outcomes associated with youth work as career success, being healthy, involvement in enjoyable, meaningful activities, achieving in education and having positive relationships. Davies (2013) agrees that these outcomes have a lot of impacts to these youths, both at the present, and in the future.

The National Citizen’s Service report and the Phoenix case study were designed to evaluate the impact of social services. These constitute the youth programmes and other services started by the coalition government to promote social work. According to NatCen Social Research (2012), the various aspects connected to social work and especially youth work, are measured to determine the impact of the services and the programme to the targeted population. The first aim is to evaluate the performance of the service, in a bid that will inform future planning. The results of the evaluation determine future planning through making improvements in the areas that require improvements. Secondly, it looks at the impact the National Citizen Services has on the youth’s behaviors and attitudes. This is related to communication by the youth, trust, and confidence, and community involvement, transition to adulthood, leadership and social mixing. Thirdly, evaluation of impact is made through collection of information from parents and guardians, concerning their young ones. The information parents provide is helpful in making changes in future planning (NatCen Social Research 2012). These two agencies measure the value of money that is channeled in the programme.

The funding of youth work and related works comes from different fronts. Youths are trained to engage and conduct fundraisings that will see them get funds for the social work. Jozwiak (2013) asserts that even some universities have taken the initiative to train the youths on how to fundraise. The government also releases money through the National Citizens Service (NatCen Social Research 2012). Another source of funds comes from the well-wishers. Apart from these, companies, through their corporate social responsibility also provide finances towards social work. Jaques (n.d) advises on how proposals are written in order to attract funding. Good management of these monies lead to future considerations for funding. This is another reason for evaluating the impact of these programmes.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this report has looked at youth work in relation to social policy, education and theory. It has deliberated on the importance of social capital, and the importance of informal learning in developing life skills among the youth. The report has also considered the evaluation of inputs, outputs, as well as, outcomes. In enumerating on these, the report has considered the National Citizens Service and its activities and also the Phoenix case study. The report has expressed the importance of youth work, and its impact in the society, and proposes continued support to the initiative.

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P. 1986. ‘The forms of social capital’, in Richardson, J.G. 1986. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Brooks, R. 2013. ‘The social construction of young people within education policy: evidence from the UK’s coalition government’. Journal of Youth Studies, Vol 16, no. 3, pp: 318-333.

Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Davies, B. 2013. Youth work in the changing policy landscape: the view from England.Youth and Policy, No 110.

DFE. 2011. Positive for youth: the new approach to cross-government policy for young people aged 13-19. HM Government.

Jacques, E. 2011. How to write the perfect funding bid. The Guardian, March 21, 2011.

Jozwiak, G. 2013. Fundraising skills added to a youth work degree syllabus. Children and Young People now, May 20, 2013.

McNeil, B., Reeder, N., & Rich, J. 2012. A framework of outcomes for young people. London: The Young Foundation

Merton, B. 2004. An evaluation of the impact of the youth work in England. Nottingham: DFFES.

Mphongo, N.S. n.d. What makes a good work manage 3.Retrieved online from www.academia.edu/1270925/What_makes_a_good_youth_work_manage_3

NatCen Social Research. 2012. Evaluation of National Service Pilots. London: The Cabinet Office.

Ogain, N.E., Lumley, T., & Pritchard, D. 2012. Making and impact: impact measurement among charities and social enterprise in the UK. London: Cabinet Office.

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW