Youth Matters: the tyranny of joined-up thinking

Youth Matters continues with the new Labour concern with

‘joined-up thinking’ and joined-up services’. As we have
argued elsewhere (see the review of the Connexions strategy)
the government’s focus on the duplication of, and lack of
coordination between, agencies and services is problematic.
There still has been little detailed or sustained research with
regard to the government’s analysis. Where it has been a
focus, for example, Cole (2000), the material has been largely
anecdotal or case-study based. We lack hard evidence that the
approach works in this context. It may well be that many
partnerships between agencies are not well planned and
‘suffer from bureaucratic and funding straightjackets which
seem to prevent suitable and sensitive partnerships and
“joined-up” solutions’ (Cole 2000: 17) – but there is some
evidence that the Connexions strategy (and now the Every
Child Matters agenda) has exacerbated this. Both bring with
them their own bureaucratic and funding straightjackets.

The notion of ‘joined-up’ services proceeds from a dubious

assumption – that young people benefit from dealing with
services that share information with one another. At one level
there is some sense in trying to avoid duplication, and in
ensuring that those working with particularly problematic
clients know important information. However, there is a
downside to it. Many agencies work on the basis of a ‘fresh
start’ – and may well not welcome such information.
Unfortunately, in the current context they may not be able to
avoid making use of it. In addition, the compilation of
comprehensive files on young people, allied with an emphasis
on coordinating the efforts of agencies, can lead to an
depersonalised approach that emphasizes the management of
cases rather than working with the young people’s accounts of
situations and experiences. Unfortunately, a lot of what has
gone on in the name of ‘child protection’ in terms of
information sharing and surveillance is better understood as
‘agency protection’. It has been informed by a concern to
‘watch backs’ rather than to seriously consider what is best for
the child or young person.

What we also know is that the sort of ‘integrated approach’

advocated in Youth Matters almost inevitably lead to greater
centralization, albeit at the children’s trust level and a vast
increase in bureaucratic activity. As the green paper itself put
it:

Applying the principles of Every Child Matters in full to

services for teenagers means planning and commissioning
services in an integrated way – across the spectrum from
universal activities to specialist and targeted support.
Children’s trusts will lead this process in each area, leading the
development of an integrated youth support service, with
integrated governance, processes and frontline delivery. (HM
Government 2005 [Youth Matters], para 76)

It is difficult to see how the government can square their

avowed aim of building a system ‘that is more responsive to
teenagers and which allows greater freedom for the frontline
and more scope to innovate’  (ibid. para. 90) with the
‘orchestrating’ role envisaged for children’s trusts.

Lastly ‘joined-up services’ can lead to the erosion of one of the

key features of good youth work – that it provides young
people with space away from the constant surveillance of
families, schools and the state; space to find and be
themselves. It might well be that there is substantial demand
by groups of young people for spaces and work that is ‘off-the-
record’; that is not part of the youth offer and youth
opportunity card arrangements. In this there is room for
action by non-state sponsored groups and agencies. As
Richard Sennett (1973) wrote in a different context, there can
be considerable benefits in disorder.

Conclusion
 In some respects Youth Matters represents a further step
towards the embracing in state-sponsored work of a
conservative version of north American youth development
activity. They both focus, in practice, ‘almost exclusively on the
individual’  (Degado, 2002: 48). They both utilise what is,
essentially, a deficit paradigm (see Smith 2003). Youth
Matters: 

 views young people seen as consumers – not citizens;

 fails more broadly to properly engage with social capital and
civic society; and threatens the civil liberties of the young –
particularly through the introduction of the youth opportunity
card.
 promotes an over-focus on the school. As a result there is a
constant danger of formalizing activity, failing to cultivate
associational life, and of not providing a sufficiently informed
and independent guidance and advice.
 heralds an extended regime of charging.
 furthers the tyranny of joined-up thinking. Young people need
space away from prying systems in order to be themselves and
to grow.

There are, of course, important organizational issues and

other questions that Youth Matters leaves unanswered. One
important area concerns the role of heads and of governing
bodies – and the extent that they will have responsibility for
the work associated with the ‘youth offer’. Another is the
stance taken around faith and faith communities. Thus far,
and in Youth Matters, faith and faith communities have been
‘dealt with’ by ignoring them – but no sensible or coherent
policy can afford to do that in the current context for any
length of time.

A further issue is linked to another element of the Labour

Party programme. The 2005 election manifesto argued for
‘new opportunities for communities to assume greater
responsibility or even ownership of community assets like
village halls, community centres, libraries or recreational
facilities’ (2005: 105). State youth work provision in the form
of centres, clubs and drop ins are obvious candidates for
neighbourhood control. There is a real sense of tension here.
With regard to Youth Matters those advancing this case lost
out. Ministers and policymakers who have been committed to
central direction in provision only seem able to deal with the
community and voluntary sector through a buyer-provider
relationship. But their days are numbered – not because of the
political strength of those concerned with democratic renewal
and social capital, but because the model doesn’t work. Just as
comprehensive economic planning failed in the 1960s, so
attempts at across-the-board ‘orchestration’ by children’s
trusts and central government will founder.

Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of Youth

Matters is unintentional. The desire to extend the surveillance
and control of the young reflected in its proposals and the
way Youth Matters seeks to close down space within state-
sponsored work for ‘disorganized’ activity does mean that
significant numbers of young people are likely to be looking
elsewhere for opportunities. There is going to be a growing
demand for new spaces where conversations can be ‘off the
record’, where privacy is respected, and where people can
simply ‘be’ and engage and organize at their pace. Pubs and
betting shops will welcome those with money. But for many
others something like an updated version of the youth club
and youth cafe will be needed. The big question is whether the
many community groups, churches and faith communities,
and voluntary youth organizations outside the state nexus will
be able to respond.