- Email: [email protected]
In a different mindset: Critical youth work with marginalized youth
Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
In a different mindset: Critical youth work with marginalized youth Maya Lavie-Ajayi ⁎, Michal Krumer-Nevo Spitzer Department of Social Work, The Israeli Center for Qualitative Research of People and Societies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 November 2012 Received in revised form 19 July 2013 Accepted 20 July 2013 Available online 27 July 2013 Keywords: Youth work Marginalized youth Critical theory Detached work
a b s t r a c t Critical youth work is based on a dual focus, on individual psychosocial development on the one hand, and collective critical consciousness and the promotion of social justice on the other. Although in practice, critical youth work is gaining popularity as an alternative to person-centered youth work, the theoretical and empirical literature has not kept pace. This paper proposes a theory based practice model that expands the vocabulary of critical youth work. The model is grounded in the work of an innovative Israeli intervention program for marginalized youth and in poststructuralist theories. The model comprised of a three dimensions: the streets as a physical and political place, the use of counter narrative, and the role the youth workers take as social capital agents. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The term “youth at risk” has become very popular in policy discourse in many countries including the United States (Spring, 2010), the United Kingdom (Case, 2006; Scottish Government, 2010), Australia (Te Riele, 2006), New Zealand (Whatman, Schagen, Vaughan, & Lander, 2010) and Israel (Schmid, 2007), as well as with international organizations (e.g. World Bank, 2008). However, the use of this term often blurs the distinction between the personal attributes of young people (Wyn & White, 1997) and the social ills that shape their lives, such as poverty and oppression. These social ills are considered merely as individual risk factors. At the same time as the complex ways in which inequality is distilled into identity and everyday experiences and behavior are overlooked. In contrast to “youth at risk”, the phrase “marginalized youth” is used as a political term to focus on what is wrong with the social economic and cultural structures, i.e. inequality and oppression, rather than on what is wrong with youth (Te Riele, 2006). The terminology of marginalization – as opposed to that of risk – invites analysis of oppression as an everyday process embedded in asymmetric power relations (Prilleltensky, Prilleltensky, & Voorhee, 2008), unquestioned social norms and representations, supported by psychological, social and cultural stereotypes and the structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies (Deutsch, 2011). Coming from this perspective critical youth work is based on a dual focus, on individual psychosocial development on the one hand, and collective critical consciousness and the promotion of social justice (Watts & Flanagan, 2007) on the other. The basic assumption ⁎ Corresponding author at: Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. Tel.: +972 77 7292694. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Lavie-Ajayi). 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.010
underpinning this approach is that the wellbeing and risk behavior of young people is linked to social exclusion, oppression, limited resources and role models, and the extent to which young people feel connected and recognized (Sharland, 2006; Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Although critical youth work is gaining popularity as an approach for practice, the theoretical and empirical literature has not kept pace. Based on the in-depth analysis of an innovative program for marginalized youth, and on the work of Foucault (1984) and Bourdieu (1986, 1990), this article presents a theory-based practice model of critical youth work. This model proposes new possibilities for working with youth, whom person-centered services struggled to engage. The article commences with a discussion on critical youth work as an alternative to person-centered youth work and a brief introduction to the current state of youth work in Israel. Then, we describe in detail an innovative Israeli street based program for marginalized youth, Brosh Acher (In a Different Mindset). We conceptualize the program's critical philosophy through three dimensions of “action”. The first defines the physical and political position of the intervention; the second is based on narrative work; and the third conceptualizes the youth workers as social capital agents. In the discussion, we ground the program's model in poststructuralist theories and discuss the practical implications and limitations of this particular model. 1.1. Person-centered youth work and critical youth work Throughout the preceding decades, significant professional resources, programs and policy have been invested into decreasing risk behaviors among marginalized youth and promoting social inclusion: in the United States (McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 2007), the United Kingdom (Bentley & Gurumurthy, 1999; Davies, 2005), the European Union (Coussée, Roets, & De Bie, 2009) as well as in Israel (Schmid, 2007). Nevertheless, a comprehensive
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
literature review of programs for youth in the United States shows that although a high percentage of the youth population participate in youth programs, marginalized youth – from families with lower incomes, and youth from ethnic minority groups – had less access to these programs (Benson & Saito, 2001). Other scholars based in Europe and Australia also found that youth programs concentrate on youth who exhibit normative behavior, or on youth who exhibit a greater potential for change due to their low level of involvement in behaviors that potentially place them at risk (Bentley & Gurumurthy, 1999; Te Riele, 2006). Coussée (2008) argues that “Youth work that works is not accessible and accessible youth work doesn't work” (p.8). Several barriers restrict the accessibility of youth work for marginalized youth, among these the highly demanding nature of the work and the complex knowledge and skills required from youth workers (Johnston, MacDonald, Mason, Ridley, & Webster, 2000). However, critical analysis points to inherent contradictions in youth work, with a neo-liberal ideology serving as the main barrier to successful youth work. It has been argued that youth work has undergone processes of individualization and criminalization that have transformed engagement to individualized case-management, emphasizing functions of control, monitoring and coercive disciplinary techniques (Jeffs & Smith, 2002; Karabanow & Rains, 1997). This is evident in the popularity of the person-centered approach in current youth work, which has contributed to a situation in which 85% of all interventions directed at children and adolescents targeted individuals rather than their environment (Durlak & Wells, 1997). The focus on accountability is another focus of the neoliberal policy that changed the more holistic, flexible and long-term youth work carried out in the streets (Crimmens et al., 2004; Pitts, 2001) to short term work delivered in “safe” spaces like offices and focused on set targets and restrictive outcomes (Coussée, 2008; Spence, 2004). Thus, despite the humanistic roots of person-centered youth work, its a-political nature contributes to ignoring the multilayered nature of lives in the margins, and does not present opportunities for engaging marginalized youth in resistance to oppression (Cooper, 2012). It is argued by a number of scholars that context minimization error i.e. downplaying enduring contextual factors (Prilleltensky et al., 2008), ignoring the underlying structural causes of the oppressive status quo and the treatment of youth as the problem (Watts & Flanagan, 2007) limit the capacity of youth work to reach out to the young people most in need of the support it can offer. As opposed to person-centered youth work, critical youth work implies a social justice and social change approach to youth work (Davies, 2005), utilizing professional resources to advocate for structural change and to organize populations to achieve their own liberation within society through the development of a critical consciousness or sociopolitical development (Diemer & Hsieh, 2008) i.e. “the psychological process that leads to and supports social and political action” (Watts & Flanagan, 2007; p. 256). In this article, we aim to contribute toward developing and strengthening critical youth work by drawing upon the work of Foucault (1984) and Bourdieu (1986, 1990) to offer a theory based practice model of successful, critical, political youth work.
1.2. The Israeli context In Israel, socio-economic gaps are strongly linked to ethnicity and geography (Cohen-Navot, Levi, & Gilad, 2008). Youth from ethnic minority groups, immigrant youth and youth living in poverty face accumulating circuits of dispossession, including restricted access to quality education (Cohen-Navot et al., 2008) and increasing levels of racism and negative contact with police. The growth in socioeconomic inequality is linked to increased risk behavior and the deterioration in the mental and physical health of youth (Fine, Stoudt, Fox & Santos, 2010). Research in Israel, as elsewhere, shows that youth marginalization is associated with involvement with violence,
1699
unsafe sex practices and use of drugs and/or alcohol (Isralowitz, Shpiegel, Reznik, & Laytin, 2009; Schmid, 2007). Awareness of the concept of marginalized youth started to develop in Israel during the 1960s. The objective of the first known intervention, in 1962, was to explore through action research the characteristics of “criminal street gangs” in Tel-Aviv – a major Israeli city – and to quantify the effectiveness of the American street club method for working with this population (Lahav, 1993: p. 4). During the 1970s, public awareness of marginalized urban youth increased as a result of activities of the Israeli Black Panthers' Movement. The Black Panthers initiated social protests blaming the government for the inferior socio economic status of specific immigrant groups, principally Mizrachi, Jews originating from Arab countries. Following the recommendation of a national committee for the allocation of more resources to the issue of marginalized children and youth, two new governmental services were established, and the “new” profession of youth work, with a specific emphasis on street youth work, was developed (Levy, 2003; Schmid, 2006). The philosophy and work model based on the American experience, originated in the Chicago School (Sherer, 1989) and had also been implemented at this time in projects in the UK (Crimmens et al., 2004). According to this model, youth work emphasized principles of “reaching out”, active efforts to make contact with the youth, and building close symmetrical relationships of empathy, love and authenticity (Levy, 2003; Sherer, 1989). However, since the 1990s several processes, such as the evolving professionalism of youth work and the demanding nature of street work have influenced the decrease in street work in Israel. These processes were strengthened by structural changes, especially a dramatic decrease in government funding for youth work (Malka & KrumerNevo, in press). Renewed interest in street youth work at the beginning of the 2000s was a response to the gradual increase in poverty rates among children and youth from the 1980s onwards, and the new waves of migration to Israel from the former USSR and Ethiopia during the 1990s. In 2003, the Israeli government initiated a national committee to explore the status of marginalized children and youth. The committee reported that approximately 330,000 children – representing 15% of all Israeli children and youth – lived at different levels of risk (Schmid, 2006). Of these, 150,000 were labeled as high-risk and in immediate and direct danger. The Schmid committee recommended the formulation of a national policy to respond to the needs of children and youth, the investment of resources and the initiation of new methods of work with marginalized children and youth (Schmid, 2006). This initiative has revitalized street youth work.
1.3. Berosh Acher — in a different mindset In 2009, a collaboration of governmental ministries and NGO actualized a three-year pilot for working with marginalized youth disconnected from social or educational services. The pilot was implemented in four small-to-medium size towns in Israel with high poverty and high number of immigrants. The initiative was called Berosh Acher, which translates to ‘In a Different Mindset’, highlighting its alternative and radical subversive nature. The program was designed to be an all-inclusive program for treating marginalized youth via street youth workers. The target population was defined as “immigrant youth having difficulties integrating in the social systems, pushed to the sidelines, joining up with street gangs where criminal behavior is common” (N.A., internal document). The youth workers worked in pairs, a man and a woman. They stayed in the streets, hanging out in places where youth gathered during evenings and nights, and established contact with them. Through these relationships, the youth workers were supposed to help the youth decrease their involvement in risky activities, connect them with the
1700
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
local social and educational services and prompt the local municipalities to develop needed services for marginalized youth. During the pilot stage, the program worked with 111 young people, average age 16.6 years old, in four peripheral towns in Israel. Close to half were female (43%), most were immigrants or children of immigrants (77%), mainly from Ethiopia and the former USSR, and were predominantly from families in severe economic distress (75%). A third of the youth were in the regular education system, a third were in special education and a third of them were not enrolled in any educational framework.1
3.1. The streets as a physical and political position
2. Methodology
In contrast to the method of “reaching out” commonly used in youth work – that consider the presence of youth workers in the streets only as the first step in the engagement process that will end in a formal, office-based treatment package – Berosh Acher sees the streets as the physical and political position within which intervention occurs. A long term presence in the streets ensures that the youth workers will have access to youth who are not capable, or do not want to be treated in a more formal setting. Thus, throughout the three year pilot the youth workers' primary working space was the street. This working space was constantly enlarged as helping relationship was developed for additional spaces, both formal and informal, including homes, schools and courts. Physical presence in the streets is a political position, one that can contribute to a change in power relations between youth and youth workers. The lengthy duration of actual physical presence on the streets, working evening and nights, means that the youth workers are learning the ‘rules of the game’ on the streets, understanding the context in which the youth live, and seeing them as active agents in any process of change. This enables the youth workers to learn “the grammar of exploitation” (Johnson & Lawler, 2005, para 1.4), to see and interpret reality from the point of view of the youth, and to familiarize themselves with this perspective so much as to become immune to the hegemonic deficit narrative that focuses on the problems of the youth. The above citation exemplifies the approach, and the shift in power relations that it enables. Rather than perceiving the youth as the problem, the ones who must to prove that they deserved to be rid of a negative label, the youth worker describes the label as put by the youth onto the youth workers. Before coming to know the youth workers, the youth labeled the youth workers as agents of societal institutions that have excluded and oppressed them. The youth workers thus have to prove themselves, and to place themselves not as agents of society vis-à-vis the youth, rather as agents of the youth vis-à-vis society. This process of proving themselves as relevant, reliable and trustworthy people for the youth does not come to an end after the initial stages of building trust. Rather, it is an on-going social and political position of standing by the youth in the face of their hardship, even in times it involves conflict with other professionals or institutions. The position of standing by the youth is demonstrated vividly by a territorial fight that occurred during the Tents Protest Movement — a wave of social protests across Israel during the summer of 2011, manifested by individuals living in tents in public spaces as a protest against social and economic inequality. Although the description of the incident suggests a gang fights, this incident occurred between a group of girls from Berosh Acher and students taking part in the Tents Protest. As the youth worker relates:
This article is based on an evaluation study that followed the program between 2009 and 2012, from initiation and throughout the pilot stage. The evaluation study employed both quantitative and qualitative data collection research tools, in order to conceptualize the critical nature of the work model as well as evaluate outcomes for the subjects and for the communities. A detailed evaluation of the outcomes of the program is provided elsewhere (Lavie-Ajayi & Krumer-Nevo, 2011). This article focuses on the work model – as conceptualized from the practice itself – emphasizing its difficulties and challenges, and the relationship between the program and the communities. Specifically, it is based on 94 repeated semi-structured, in-depth interviews with project youth workers, the project's management staff and key figures in the communities and from 10 participant observations on site and in training and management team meetings. Data was analyzed using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Interviews were analyzed during the data collection period, and the interview schedule was amended according to the emergence or nonoccurrence of themes. At the initial stage, all statements were categorized (open coding). Categories were then grouped into more abstract themes (axial coding). As analysis progressed, focus turned to those categories that appeared to be of greatest relevance to the developing theory (selective coding). Negative examples were noted and explored in further interviews, alongside confirmatory data. To strengthen the credibility of our analysis, an evaluation report was presented to the project's youth workers, management staff and funders at the end of each year, and feedback received from these principals was utilized in on-going project development (Lincoln, 1995). Feedback received from staff helped us shape the conceptualization of the program over time in a circular process of data collection, analysis, writing up and presentation in meetings, feedback from the staff and back to data collection. 3. The programs' theory of action The practice of Berosh Acher is the translation of critical theories into youth work practice. By critical theories, we refer to the commitment to ideas originating in a progressive political stance, one that aspires towards social transformation as a form of justice and emancipation (Gray & Webb, 2009), and in particular the work of Foucault (1984) and Bourdieu (1986, 1990). The objective of Berosh Acher is to challenge the status quo regarding marginalized youth by working on two different but compatible levels: the first is the improvement of the youth's psychosocial wellbeing; the other is the reformation of social institutions and structures. This can be seen in the program's practice in three dimensions: 1) the streets as a physical and political position; 2) youth workers' use of counter narrative; and 3) the role that youth workers take as agents of social capital. 1 These data are based on an evaluation of the program (Lavie-Ajayi & Krumer-Nevo, 2011).
“These youngsters feel disappointed and frustrated because of other services, school and so on, so when one arrives into the neighborhood, even if you have the best intentions, immediately they put a label on you and you cannot work. But when you arrive as yourself and you get into the neighborhood and you become part of the neighborhood and you become an address to turn to for solving problems or for help, it creates a connection that cross boundaries.” [Berosh Acher youth worker]
“It was a normal day, nothing special and we had nowhere to sit. We stood by the students' protest. The girls were hungry, and I told them to sit in the tent while I went and bring food that my mother prepared. Then a group of students arrived and asked the girls to leave, because “they don't fit the protest”. A big fight evolved, someone started calling them “sluts”, “thieves”, “they will take your laptop”, in one second it was ignited… I was so frustrated. First of all immediately I brought there all the girls, it was clear to me that I am
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
doing it on purpose, that I bring all the girls and we sit there. Then I called my supervisor and he brought two important people with him. The girls told them their stories, what they're doing there and how they were treated and how they cannot get away from the horrible situation and how no one sees them. They talked about the snowball in their lives…they made the two men cry.” This fight became a significant event in the life of Berosh Acher in this community. The youth worker exposed the attitudes of “Othering” toward the girls — the students' apprehension of being close to the girls, who themselves were in desperate need of housing but still were not perceived by the students as individuals who fit into the protest. The youth worker – who could herself fit into the protest, as one of the students – understood the hypocrisy of the situation and was able to give up her place in the confident sphere with the students to join “her girls” in a political act of making their voice heard and demanding their rights. Staying in the streets is not merely empathy with the girls; but is also a political and ideological stand.
3.2. Counter narrative in identity work and advocacy The story the youth workers maintain and which shapes their work is a counter narrative (Fine & Harris, 2001), placing marginalization in the context of oppression and economic, social and cultural inequality. Maintaining such a counter narrative is based on “critical consciousness” (conscientizacao) (Freire, 1993), i.e. the ability to perceive and interrogate the various forms of oppression that shape one's life, and to take collective action against the status quo. The youth workers use the counter narrative in two central modes: first, in direct interactions with the youth as a vehicle to support positive identity work; and second, in their encounters with other professionals in social system as advocates for the youth. Counter narrative as identity work: research shows that the context of oppression and inequality often causes psychological damage to the youth's self perception; challenging the sense of worth, dignity, respect, humanity, and an appreciation of one's own place in the world, it comprises pain and demoralization (Case & Hunter, 2012; Prilleltensky et al., 2008). This must be recognized by youth workers as the first step in encouraging personal development in the youth. Understanding what can be seen otherwise as behavioral, moral problems, or even sociopathology, as symptoms of social scars, expressions of resistance to inequality, requires the youth workers to replace the narrative of the youth deficit. We call the new counter narrative that the youth workers use, a narrative of worth (Case & Hunter, 2012). As will be exemplify later, the narrative of worth enables the contextualization of the youth behavior, and with it a deeper understanding of the youth, without romanticizing them. It is the basis for what Case and Hunter (2012, p. 266) call “direct relational transactions”, i.e. the processes by which direct and routine relational transactions such as communication created by the youth workers facilitate adaptive responding. This narrative shows to the youth that they deserve dignity and respect; that they are good, even though they may be involved in “bad” behavior. Promoting a counter narrative of this nature cannot come from a naïve stance. In fact, it relies upon distinct and ongoing efforts to allow the youth determine the depth and pace of their disclosure of their stories. This becomes crucial because other professionals in the community – social workers, teachers, or police – offer criminalizing information regarding the youth on a regular basis. In fact, the sharing of the hegemonic deficit narrative between professionals – even for supposedly laudable purposes such as improving the community's responses towards the youth – is an important element of the maintenance of the hegemonic narrative. Thus, in order to hold the counter narrative of worth, youth workers should explicitly avoid the deficit narrative.
1701
This practice is reflected in the following discussion held in one of the program's training days between a youth worker and the program's supervisor: Youth worker: “There is a young person I was supposed to escort to court to close an old case. We were on the right track with him, he progressed, but then he disappeared. The day before the sitting, I found out that he was under house arrest because a new record was open against him for drugs and theft. I don't necessarily know everything he does in the afternoons. He tells me that the drugs they found are not his (…) I received information from other sources and I realize his face is changing [for me] I don't know this level of sophistication, like a portrait of a criminal I didn't see. I was in a dilemma whether to confront him with this information, if so then what next?”Supervisor: “The only appropriate way is to say ‘I am ready to join you to a process of getting to know you in which different sides of your personality will come out, even if those were not expressed until now’. To make it easier for you and him, you should not directly ask questions related to delinquency, because these questions present you with a dilemma, what to do with this information. You want to allow them to tell a different story about themselves. Their delinquency story is narrated by them, by the police, by the society, by their parents. You should allow them to start create themselves a different story that stands as an alternative to the story of criminality. These stories can exist together. I can be criminal and other things as well.” Avoiding the narrative of criminality is the first step in developing a narrative of worth. It must be complemented by a new dialog regarding aspects of the youth's reality and inner life that are not discussed in the narrative of deficit. These new aspects might include experiences of oppression that the youth have faced and their coping with these experiences (Watts et al., 1999), fears and scars, and their hopes and wishes for the future. The narrative of worth should not ignore the aspects of their behavior that damage both themselves and others, but rather seek to incorporate these in a complex story using a new and contextualized perspective. The struggle of a youth worker with the practice of the narrative of worth is illustrated in the coming example: Youth worker: “There is a new group, they're not in real risk yet, one of them is always checking my boundaries. He stole a bottle of cocacola form the shop where I work. They caught him but let him go. I feel it was kind of defiance against me because it's the first time he did such a thing. I wanted to make a confrontation with him, and tell him that he did it because he wants me to be there for him, and that he doesn't have to do it, because I'll be there for him as much as he wants. How can I frighten him that he won't escalate his behavior?”Supervisor: “You have to ask yourself how to escape a predictable situation. For example go and tell him: ‘by the way, I already paid for that bottle of Coca, take it.’ If you do such a thing it's like you're telling him, I'm willing to be in a different kind of dialog with you. The question is what are you ready to do in this relationship? What kind of commitment you're willing to take upon yourself? We start to flourish as professionals when we know our commitment… the professional solution is to be a mirror that reflects value. You need to find yourself in a place that reflects value not criminality.” The narrative of worth functions as a social support for the youth, challenging the negative stereotypes regarding the internalized identities, according to which they are immanently and totally bad, allowing them to envision and craft positive and self-affirming personal identities. Counter narrative as advocacy: The narrative of worth is used by the youth workers not only in their transactions with the youth, but also in formal and informal discussions with other professionals. We see these encounters as acts of advocacy; aiming to load the discursive
1702
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
space given to the youth with positive meanings and to contribute to discursive social change as an end goal. Berosh Acher's youth workers understand their role as active advocators for their clientele, bringing their narrative to the different institutional forums in which decisions regarding their future are determined. The youth workers suggest alternative ways of working with the young people, and open new opportunities for them. In this regard, they perceive professionals in social institutions as holders of the deficit hegemonic narrative, and aim to help these symbols of authority transform their narrative as a means to enlist them to work for the youth. This can be done by influencing teachers, policemen, social workers or judges in the court system. “Pedagogical meetings in school are closed meetings, it's only the teachers and the principal of the school. Yesterday I was in one of these meetings. I wanted to be there because I knew that at the moment that one of the names of my youth will come up they will say things, and I wanted to give the other side of the child. I told the principal that I want to be there. And I said what I had to say; because I know these children's real life…they were not used to hearing these things from the field, from the real place.” The aim of the youth workers is to share the counter narrative of critical moments in the youth's lives with engaged professionals. This is not only on behalf of the subjects discussed, but is also as an educational and transformative endeavor intended to engender a social discursive change in the local context of the community. This hints at the complex and challenging role of the youth workers in comparison with other professionals. As described earlier, the youth workers tend to create a distance from other professionals, in order to avoid their narrative and negative representations of the youth. Yet, later they attempt to close this gap in order to prompt the professionals to question their own narrative and to explore the counter narrative as legitimate and the basis for further praxis. 3.3. Youth workers as social capital agents Youth need social and institutional support, socially organized activities and mentor relationships in order to mature sufficiently to meet the challenges posed by adulthood (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Connections between adults and youth shaped through organized youth programs can serve to enhance the social capital of young people, in the sense of relationships that provide access to potentially beneficial resources. These resources include the information, support and encouragement that expose the youth to the adult world in an empowering way (Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2012). Discussions about social capital tend to focus on socializing youth into the status quo, around current institutions and structures. However, when adopting a critical perspective, enhancing social capital is based on decoding the system, a sociological analysis of the community resources and its unequal distribution. Based on the acknowledgment of the dependency of oneself on her own privileged social capital, thus it takes the form of working against the status quo — that is to say, creating access to opportunities and resources not readily available in the existing social sphere for marginalized youth, because of the relative weakness of the social capital possessed by parents and other adult figures in marginalized communities. It is also an analysis of the “actors and organizations that may not have an empowerment agenda and any particular commitment to low-status youth” (Stanton-Salazar, 2011: p.1092). Understanding the importance of social capital the youth workers take the role of 'institutional agents', which refers according to Stanton-Salazar (2011), individuals with high-status hierarchical positions who transmit, or negotiate the transmission of highly valued resources, opportunities, privileges, or services to low status adolescents. By connecting low status youth to high valued social capital, these agents work in opposition to stratification forces in society.
Although the social status of the youth workers of Berosh Acher is higher than that of the youth, they may not be treated as “individuals with high-status hierarchical positions”. Since they lack formal power in the institutions they wish to influence, they have to create a large and diverse professional support network with key allies across different institutions. In this process their close relationship with the youth helps them, gradually, sometimes slowly, to gain the trust of professionals and to gain the informal status of experts themselves. We term their role agents of social capital as an extension of the term institutional agents which is used by Stanton-Salazar (2011). Their role as agents of social capital is dual: They work simultaneously to make available for the youth highly valued resources, opportunities, privileges and services; and to develop in the youth the knowledge and coping strategies needed to expand their access to institutional resources. In this regard they work both to empower the youth and to empower the professionals and democratize the system. As described by one youth worker: “Many youngsters do not understand the police. They do not understand how they need to behave and what they need to do in order to work through different issues relating to their getting into troubles. So in our relationship with them and in our work we try to explain the bigger picture to them, i.e. what is the role of the probation officer, what is the role of the lawyer and what the police wants from them. Because no one explains to them how to behave and what they should do. On the other hand we also try to be in touch with the authorities to pass the kids' wishes and to highlight the kid's rights, the things he deserves, to put the focus on the child (…) to talk with the probation officer and to convince him to write a proper memorandum which can change his destiny, rather than going to jail he can go to Malkishua [Drug Rehabilitation Center] or a different place that will give him a better future”. In this role, youth workers adopt a multi-faceted role, incorporating the roles of advocates and coordinators, and providing knowledge needed to navigate the system, a role which Stanton-Salazar (2011) names knowledge agent. As one youth worker described: “We created a network that encompasses everyone, we are in touch with probation officers, lawyers, the children's parent, the municipality, welfare services and other services that surround the youngster in an attempt to build a plan that can escort him/her. Each youngster is a different story”. When the youth workers succeed in attaining the status of experts, they can lobby not only for the particular needs of the individuals they work with, but also for the needs of other marginalized youth. In these cases, they may be involved in negotiating introductions and agreements between the various parties that control resources, for the benefit of the youth. This is well described by one welfare officer who talked about the work of ‘Berosh Acher’: It is important to highlight that ‘Berosh Acher’ was the main trigger to facilitate the understanding that it is not enough to find the young women and build a relationship of trust with them, the understanding that there is a need to create resources to address the need of young women at extreme risk. ‘Berosh Acher’ also promoted working meeting to think together on the kinds of resources needed. Our data suggests that even though the youth workers do not have high status, authority or access to resources, they are able to work to enhance the youth's social capital and to transform, at least at a local level, social institutions and structures in favor of the youth. 4. Discussion This paper offers a theory-based practice model for critical youth work. It is grounded in the documentation, conceptualization and
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
evaluation of an intervention program with marginalized youth. Corroborating existing literature (Coussée, 2008; Crimmens et al., 2004; Jeffs & Smith, 2002; Johnston et al., 2000), this study finds that street-based youth work, which aims to enhance social justice based on critical approach, can reach marginalized youth, and can work together with them and their communities to diminish social exclusion and expand the range of opportunities available to them. The model described in this article translates critical theories into youth work practice. As shown in this article, it has unique importance for interventions aimed at marginalized youth with high level of involvement in behaviors that potentially place them “at risk”, who are not capable, or do not want to be treated in a more formal setting. The biggest barrier for implementation of this approach is the neoliberal standpoint and functionalist perspective, often held by the establishment, that see the main function of youth work to control, monitor and restrain the problems of youth. The critical youth workers who aim to challenge the basis from which these problems arise rather than restrains the “problematic youth” is under a lot of pressure (Kulisa, 2009). Holding a critical position means being “willing to disembed themselves from the reproductive practices of their institution or environment” (Stanton-Salazar, 2011; p. 1090). Having “a different mindset” cannot be enough for this challenge. Rather, there is a need for professionals to position themselves differently within the establishment. This position often marginalizes the youth workers themselves, as they are in the difficult position of being at the very same time both within and in opposition to the established institutions and structures. We will conclude by highlighting some of the links between the practice and poststructuralist theories. The first dimension of the model focuses on the streets as a physical and political place of critical youth work. Looking at this principal of practice through Bourdieu's (1990) concepts of habitus and the field, working with young people inside an office means asking them to enter a space ruled by hegemonic, bureaucratic establishment. In the office their habitus marks them as others, and is the target of correctional efforts. However, choosing the streets as the main space in which relationship are developed and youth work occurs highlights its potential to change the hegemonic power relations and challenge processes of stigma and Othering. Working in the streets enables the youth workers to learn the habitus of the youth, to acknowledge the ways that oppression influences their everyday experiences and to stand by them. The second dimension of the model – narrative work – is informed by Foucault's (1984) concepts of discourse and knowledge/power. We argue that narratives affect both the way young people see themselves and the way the establishment, through different service providers, see young people and makes sense of their behavior (Besley, 2001). We suggest that the narratives held by both sides are often draws upon the hegemonic deficit narrative that see the young people as the problem and aim to fix them. Foucault's (1984) work highlights that by problematizing present discourses and narratives, one can challenge existing functions of power/knowledge, and criticizes the working of institutions. A principal political task is to criticize the functioning of institutions, especially those that present as neutral (Besley, 2001). The problematization of the hegemonic deficit narrative should be carried out on two levels: firstly in direct interactions with the youth as a vehicle to support positive identity work (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2002) and increase sociopolitical development (Diemer & Hsieh, 2008); secondly, in encounters with other professionals in the social system in order to deconstruct the hegemonic professional narrative and to advocate for the youth. Interventions that support the wellbeing of marginalized youth must combine the interpersonal with the macro/collective, and must not ignore contextual factors of power and ecological influence (Prilleltensky et al., 2008). The third dimension focuses on expanding social capital. Based on Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction (Bourdieu, 1986), StantonSalazar (2011) defines social capital in terms of key resources and
1703
institutional support. The weakness of the social capital held by parents and other adult figures in marginalized communities reproduces existing patterns of inequality (Sharland, 2006). The model presented in this article expands on Stanton-Salazar's (2011) conceptualization to define critical youth workers as social capital agents. This role is multifaceted, incorporating the roles of advocates, knowledge-agents and coordinators. It demands creativity and finding one's own way through complex unexpected situations. There are a number of limitations to this study. First our discussion in embedded in the Israeli context. Despite the uniqueness of this context, the literature from around the world highlights similar difficulties, challenges and successes. Second, beside the effectiveness of the program presented in this article in terms of reaching out to marginalized youth, further research is needed in order to evaluate the potential of the model for reducing risk behaviors and changing social and educational services. Yet, this article proposes a theory based practice model that expands the vocabulary of critical youth work by emphasizing the importance of a political and ideological stand against the othering of marginalized youth. References Benson, P. L., & Saito, R. N. (2001). The scientific foundations of youth development. In P. L. Benson, & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development (pp. 135–154). US: Springer. Bentley, T., & Gurumurthy, R. (1999). Destination unknown: engaging with the problems of marginalized youth. London: Demos. Besley, T. (2001). Foucauldian influences in narrative therapy: An approach for schools. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 72–94. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 46–58). New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Case, S. (2006). Young people ‘at risk’ of what? Challenging risk-focused early intervention as crime prevention. Youth Justice, 6, 171–179. Case, A.D., & Hunter, C. D. (2012). Counterspaces: a unit of analysis for understanding the role of settings in marginalized individuals' adaptive responses to oppression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 257–270. Cohen-Navot, M., Levi, D., & Gilad, S. (2008). Opportunities for NGO involvement in the education of disadvantaged children and youth in Israel: Future directions for youth renewal fund. Research report. Israel: Jerusalem: Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. Cooper, C. (2012). Imagining ‘radical’ youth work possibilities—challenging the ‘symbolic violence’ within the mainstream tradition in contemporary state-led youth work practice in England. Journal of Youth Studies, 15, 53–71. Coussée, F. (2008). A century of youth work policy. Gent: Academia Press. Coussée, F., Roets, G., & De Bie, M. (2009). Empowering the powerful: Challenging hidden processes of marginalization in youth work policy and practice in Belgium. Critical Social Policy, 29, 421–442. Crimmens, D., Factor, F., Jeffs, T., Pitts, J., Pugh, C., Spence, J., et al. (2004). Reaching socially excluded young people: A national study of street-based youth work. Discussion Paper. Leicester: National Youth Agency. Davies, B. (2005). Youth work: A manifesto for our times. Youth and Policy, 88(5), 7–27. Deutsch, M. (2011). Justice and conflict. In P. T. Coleman (Ed.), Conflict, interdependence, and justice: The intellectual legacy of Morton Deutsch (pp. 95–118). New York: Springer New York. Diemer, M.A., & Hsieh, C. (2008). Sociopolitical development and vocational expectations among lower socioeconomic status adolescents of color. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 257–269. Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A.M. (1997). Primary prevention programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115–152. Ferrer-Wreder, L., Lorente, C., Kurtines, W., Briones, E., Bussell, J., Berman, S., et al. (2002). Promoting identity development in marginalized youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 168–189. Fine, M., & Harris, A. (2001). Under the covers: Theorising the politics of counter stories (no. 4). : Lawrence & Wishart. Fine, M., Stoudt, B. G., Fox, M., & Santos, M. (2010). The uneven distribution of social suffering: Documenting the social health consequences of neo-liberal social policy on marginalized youth. The European Health Psychologist, 12, 30–35. Foucault, M. (1984). Polemics, politics and problematisation. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed.)New York: Continuum. Gray, M., & Webb, S. A. (2009). Critical social work. In M. Gray, & S. A. Webb (Eds.), Social work: Theories and methods (pp. 76–86). Los Angeles and London: Sage. Isralowitz, R., Shpiegel, S., Reznik, A., & Laytin, A. (2009). Ethiopian youth in Israel: Gender-related alcohol use and related problem behavior. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 16, 273–278. Jeffs, T., & Smith, M. (2002). Individualisation and youth work. Youth and Policy, 76, 39–65. Johnson, P., & Lawler, S. (2005). Coming home to love and class. Sociological Research Online, 10(3) (available online at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/3/johnson.html (accessed 1 October 2012)).
1704
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
Johnston, L., MacDonald, R., Mason, P., Ridley, L., & Webster, C. (2000). Snakes and ladders: Young people, transitions and social exclusion. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Karabanow, J. M., & Rains, P. (1997). Structure versus caring: discrepant perspectives in a shelter for street kids. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 301–321. Kulisa, J. (2009). Critical' youth work practice in a ‘functionalist’ environment: a Western Australian case study. The Journal of Youth Work, 3, 27–42. Lahav, H. (1993). Development of services for detached youth in the educational system in Israel between 1935–1990. Social and Youth Administration. available online at. http://hinuch.education.gov.il/i01net/I01TeurParit.aspx?SemelParit=94078 ((accessed 1 October, 2012) (Hebrew)). Lavie-Ajayi, M., & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2011). Nirim partnership for youth at extreme risk. Report presented to JDC and the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. Levy, A. (2003). From vision to reality-process for building a professional vision for youth services in the Ministry of Labor and Welfare. Meeting for Education-Social Work 17 (pp. 107–129) (Hebrew). Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275–289. Malka, M., & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2013). Youth workers in Israel. In Z. Valden (Ed.), Youth in Israel. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press (Hebrew) (in press). McWhirter, J. J., McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, R. J. (2007). At risk youth: A comprehensive response for youth workers, teachers, psychologists, and human service professionals (5th ed.)Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Pitts, J. (2001). Young people talking about social inclusion: a three nation study — part II. Social Work in Europe, 8, 29–39. Prilleltensky, I., Prilleltensky, O., & Voorhee, C. (2008). Psychopolitical validity in the helping professions: Applications to research, interventions, case conceptualization, and therapy. In C. I. Cohen, & S. Timimi (Eds.), Liberatory psychiatry: Philosophy, politics and mental health (pp. 105–130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmid, H. (2006). Report of a national committee to examine the status of children and youth at risk and distress. Israel: Israeli Government (Hebrew).
Schmid, H. (2007). Children and youth at risk in Israel: Findings and recommendations to improve their well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1114–1128. Scottish Government (2010). More choices, more chances. Edinburgh: Stationery Office. Sharland, E. (2006). Young people, risk taking and risk making: some thoughts for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 247–265. Sherer, M. (1989). Youth work professionalization in Israel: promises and their realization. Society and Welfare, 9, 240–259 (Hebrew). Spence, J. (2004). Targeting, accountability and youth work practice. Practice, 16, 261–272. Spring, J. (2010). American education. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43, 1066–1109. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.)California: Sage. Te Riele, K. (2006). Youth ‘at risk’: further marginalizing the marginalized? Journal of Education Policy, 21, 129–145. Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779–792. Watts, R. J., Griffith, D.M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression: Theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255–271. Whatman, J., Schagen, S., Vaughan, K., & Lander, J. (2010). Engaging young people/young adults in literacy, language and numeracy skill development: A literature review. New Zealand: Department of Labour. World Bank (2008). Supporting youth at risk: A policy toolkit for middle-income countries. USA: The World Bank. Wyn, J., & White, R. (1997). Rethinking youth. Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd. Zeldin, S., Christens, B.D., & Powers, J. L. (2012). The psychology and practice of youth– adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–13.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
In a different mindset: Critical youth work with marginalized youth Maya Lavie-Ajayi ⁎, Michal Krumer-Nevo Spitzer Department of Social Work, The Israeli Center for Qualitative Research of People and Societies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 November 2012 Received in revised form 19 July 2013 Accepted 20 July 2013 Available online 27 July 2013 Keywords: Youth work Marginalized youth Critical theory Detached work
a b s t r a c t Critical youth work is based on a dual focus, on individual psychosocial development on the one hand, and collective critical consciousness and the promotion of social justice on the other. Although in practice, critical youth work is gaining popularity as an alternative to person-centered youth work, the theoretical and empirical literature has not kept pace. This paper proposes a theory based practice model that expands the vocabulary of critical youth work. The model is grounded in the work of an innovative Israeli intervention program for marginalized youth and in poststructuralist theories. The model comprised of a three dimensions: the streets as a physical and political place, the use of counter narrative, and the role the youth workers take as social capital agents. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The term “youth at risk” has become very popular in policy discourse in many countries including the United States (Spring, 2010), the United Kingdom (Case, 2006; Scottish Government, 2010), Australia (Te Riele, 2006), New Zealand (Whatman, Schagen, Vaughan, & Lander, 2010) and Israel (Schmid, 2007), as well as with international organizations (e.g. World Bank, 2008). However, the use of this term often blurs the distinction between the personal attributes of young people (Wyn & White, 1997) and the social ills that shape their lives, such as poverty and oppression. These social ills are considered merely as individual risk factors. At the same time as the complex ways in which inequality is distilled into identity and everyday experiences and behavior are overlooked. In contrast to “youth at risk”, the phrase “marginalized youth” is used as a political term to focus on what is wrong with the social economic and cultural structures, i.e. inequality and oppression, rather than on what is wrong with youth (Te Riele, 2006). The terminology of marginalization – as opposed to that of risk – invites analysis of oppression as an everyday process embedded in asymmetric power relations (Prilleltensky, Prilleltensky, & Voorhee, 2008), unquestioned social norms and representations, supported by psychological, social and cultural stereotypes and the structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies (Deutsch, 2011). Coming from this perspective critical youth work is based on a dual focus, on individual psychosocial development on the one hand, and collective critical consciousness and the promotion of social justice (Watts & Flanagan, 2007) on the other. The basic assumption ⁎ Corresponding author at: Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, POB 653, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. Tel.: +972 77 7292694. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Lavie-Ajayi). 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.010
underpinning this approach is that the wellbeing and risk behavior of young people is linked to social exclusion, oppression, limited resources and role models, and the extent to which young people feel connected and recognized (Sharland, 2006; Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Although critical youth work is gaining popularity as an approach for practice, the theoretical and empirical literature has not kept pace. Based on the in-depth analysis of an innovative program for marginalized youth, and on the work of Foucault (1984) and Bourdieu (1986, 1990), this article presents a theory-based practice model of critical youth work. This model proposes new possibilities for working with youth, whom person-centered services struggled to engage. The article commences with a discussion on critical youth work as an alternative to person-centered youth work and a brief introduction to the current state of youth work in Israel. Then, we describe in detail an innovative Israeli street based program for marginalized youth, Brosh Acher (In a Different Mindset). We conceptualize the program's critical philosophy through three dimensions of “action”. The first defines the physical and political position of the intervention; the second is based on narrative work; and the third conceptualizes the youth workers as social capital agents. In the discussion, we ground the program's model in poststructuralist theories and discuss the practical implications and limitations of this particular model. 1.1. Person-centered youth work and critical youth work Throughout the preceding decades, significant professional resources, programs and policy have been invested into decreasing risk behaviors among marginalized youth and promoting social inclusion: in the United States (McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 2007), the United Kingdom (Bentley & Gurumurthy, 1999; Davies, 2005), the European Union (Coussée, Roets, & De Bie, 2009) as well as in Israel (Schmid, 2007). Nevertheless, a comprehensive
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
literature review of programs for youth in the United States shows that although a high percentage of the youth population participate in youth programs, marginalized youth – from families with lower incomes, and youth from ethnic minority groups – had less access to these programs (Benson & Saito, 2001). Other scholars based in Europe and Australia also found that youth programs concentrate on youth who exhibit normative behavior, or on youth who exhibit a greater potential for change due to their low level of involvement in behaviors that potentially place them at risk (Bentley & Gurumurthy, 1999; Te Riele, 2006). Coussée (2008) argues that “Youth work that works is not accessible and accessible youth work doesn't work” (p.8). Several barriers restrict the accessibility of youth work for marginalized youth, among these the highly demanding nature of the work and the complex knowledge and skills required from youth workers (Johnston, MacDonald, Mason, Ridley, & Webster, 2000). However, critical analysis points to inherent contradictions in youth work, with a neo-liberal ideology serving as the main barrier to successful youth work. It has been argued that youth work has undergone processes of individualization and criminalization that have transformed engagement to individualized case-management, emphasizing functions of control, monitoring and coercive disciplinary techniques (Jeffs & Smith, 2002; Karabanow & Rains, 1997). This is evident in the popularity of the person-centered approach in current youth work, which has contributed to a situation in which 85% of all interventions directed at children and adolescents targeted individuals rather than their environment (Durlak & Wells, 1997). The focus on accountability is another focus of the neoliberal policy that changed the more holistic, flexible and long-term youth work carried out in the streets (Crimmens et al., 2004; Pitts, 2001) to short term work delivered in “safe” spaces like offices and focused on set targets and restrictive outcomes (Coussée, 2008; Spence, 2004). Thus, despite the humanistic roots of person-centered youth work, its a-political nature contributes to ignoring the multilayered nature of lives in the margins, and does not present opportunities for engaging marginalized youth in resistance to oppression (Cooper, 2012). It is argued by a number of scholars that context minimization error i.e. downplaying enduring contextual factors (Prilleltensky et al., 2008), ignoring the underlying structural causes of the oppressive status quo and the treatment of youth as the problem (Watts & Flanagan, 2007) limit the capacity of youth work to reach out to the young people most in need of the support it can offer. As opposed to person-centered youth work, critical youth work implies a social justice and social change approach to youth work (Davies, 2005), utilizing professional resources to advocate for structural change and to organize populations to achieve their own liberation within society through the development of a critical consciousness or sociopolitical development (Diemer & Hsieh, 2008) i.e. “the psychological process that leads to and supports social and political action” (Watts & Flanagan, 2007; p. 256). In this article, we aim to contribute toward developing and strengthening critical youth work by drawing upon the work of Foucault (1984) and Bourdieu (1986, 1990) to offer a theory based practice model of successful, critical, political youth work.
1.2. The Israeli context In Israel, socio-economic gaps are strongly linked to ethnicity and geography (Cohen-Navot, Levi, & Gilad, 2008). Youth from ethnic minority groups, immigrant youth and youth living in poverty face accumulating circuits of dispossession, including restricted access to quality education (Cohen-Navot et al., 2008) and increasing levels of racism and negative contact with police. The growth in socioeconomic inequality is linked to increased risk behavior and the deterioration in the mental and physical health of youth (Fine, Stoudt, Fox & Santos, 2010). Research in Israel, as elsewhere, shows that youth marginalization is associated with involvement with violence,
1699
unsafe sex practices and use of drugs and/or alcohol (Isralowitz, Shpiegel, Reznik, & Laytin, 2009; Schmid, 2007). Awareness of the concept of marginalized youth started to develop in Israel during the 1960s. The objective of the first known intervention, in 1962, was to explore through action research the characteristics of “criminal street gangs” in Tel-Aviv – a major Israeli city – and to quantify the effectiveness of the American street club method for working with this population (Lahav, 1993: p. 4). During the 1970s, public awareness of marginalized urban youth increased as a result of activities of the Israeli Black Panthers' Movement. The Black Panthers initiated social protests blaming the government for the inferior socio economic status of specific immigrant groups, principally Mizrachi, Jews originating from Arab countries. Following the recommendation of a national committee for the allocation of more resources to the issue of marginalized children and youth, two new governmental services were established, and the “new” profession of youth work, with a specific emphasis on street youth work, was developed (Levy, 2003; Schmid, 2006). The philosophy and work model based on the American experience, originated in the Chicago School (Sherer, 1989) and had also been implemented at this time in projects in the UK (Crimmens et al., 2004). According to this model, youth work emphasized principles of “reaching out”, active efforts to make contact with the youth, and building close symmetrical relationships of empathy, love and authenticity (Levy, 2003; Sherer, 1989). However, since the 1990s several processes, such as the evolving professionalism of youth work and the demanding nature of street work have influenced the decrease in street work in Israel. These processes were strengthened by structural changes, especially a dramatic decrease in government funding for youth work (Malka & KrumerNevo, in press). Renewed interest in street youth work at the beginning of the 2000s was a response to the gradual increase in poverty rates among children and youth from the 1980s onwards, and the new waves of migration to Israel from the former USSR and Ethiopia during the 1990s. In 2003, the Israeli government initiated a national committee to explore the status of marginalized children and youth. The committee reported that approximately 330,000 children – representing 15% of all Israeli children and youth – lived at different levels of risk (Schmid, 2006). Of these, 150,000 were labeled as high-risk and in immediate and direct danger. The Schmid committee recommended the formulation of a national policy to respond to the needs of children and youth, the investment of resources and the initiation of new methods of work with marginalized children and youth (Schmid, 2006). This initiative has revitalized street youth work.
1.3. Berosh Acher — in a different mindset In 2009, a collaboration of governmental ministries and NGO actualized a three-year pilot for working with marginalized youth disconnected from social or educational services. The pilot was implemented in four small-to-medium size towns in Israel with high poverty and high number of immigrants. The initiative was called Berosh Acher, which translates to ‘In a Different Mindset’, highlighting its alternative and radical subversive nature. The program was designed to be an all-inclusive program for treating marginalized youth via street youth workers. The target population was defined as “immigrant youth having difficulties integrating in the social systems, pushed to the sidelines, joining up with street gangs where criminal behavior is common” (N.A., internal document). The youth workers worked in pairs, a man and a woman. They stayed in the streets, hanging out in places where youth gathered during evenings and nights, and established contact with them. Through these relationships, the youth workers were supposed to help the youth decrease their involvement in risky activities, connect them with the
1700
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
local social and educational services and prompt the local municipalities to develop needed services for marginalized youth. During the pilot stage, the program worked with 111 young people, average age 16.6 years old, in four peripheral towns in Israel. Close to half were female (43%), most were immigrants or children of immigrants (77%), mainly from Ethiopia and the former USSR, and were predominantly from families in severe economic distress (75%). A third of the youth were in the regular education system, a third were in special education and a third of them were not enrolled in any educational framework.1
3.1. The streets as a physical and political position
2. Methodology
In contrast to the method of “reaching out” commonly used in youth work – that consider the presence of youth workers in the streets only as the first step in the engagement process that will end in a formal, office-based treatment package – Berosh Acher sees the streets as the physical and political position within which intervention occurs. A long term presence in the streets ensures that the youth workers will have access to youth who are not capable, or do not want to be treated in a more formal setting. Thus, throughout the three year pilot the youth workers' primary working space was the street. This working space was constantly enlarged as helping relationship was developed for additional spaces, both formal and informal, including homes, schools and courts. Physical presence in the streets is a political position, one that can contribute to a change in power relations between youth and youth workers. The lengthy duration of actual physical presence on the streets, working evening and nights, means that the youth workers are learning the ‘rules of the game’ on the streets, understanding the context in which the youth live, and seeing them as active agents in any process of change. This enables the youth workers to learn “the grammar of exploitation” (Johnson & Lawler, 2005, para 1.4), to see and interpret reality from the point of view of the youth, and to familiarize themselves with this perspective so much as to become immune to the hegemonic deficit narrative that focuses on the problems of the youth. The above citation exemplifies the approach, and the shift in power relations that it enables. Rather than perceiving the youth as the problem, the ones who must to prove that they deserved to be rid of a negative label, the youth worker describes the label as put by the youth onto the youth workers. Before coming to know the youth workers, the youth labeled the youth workers as agents of societal institutions that have excluded and oppressed them. The youth workers thus have to prove themselves, and to place themselves not as agents of society vis-à-vis the youth, rather as agents of the youth vis-à-vis society. This process of proving themselves as relevant, reliable and trustworthy people for the youth does not come to an end after the initial stages of building trust. Rather, it is an on-going social and political position of standing by the youth in the face of their hardship, even in times it involves conflict with other professionals or institutions. The position of standing by the youth is demonstrated vividly by a territorial fight that occurred during the Tents Protest Movement — a wave of social protests across Israel during the summer of 2011, manifested by individuals living in tents in public spaces as a protest against social and economic inequality. Although the description of the incident suggests a gang fights, this incident occurred between a group of girls from Berosh Acher and students taking part in the Tents Protest. As the youth worker relates:
This article is based on an evaluation study that followed the program between 2009 and 2012, from initiation and throughout the pilot stage. The evaluation study employed both quantitative and qualitative data collection research tools, in order to conceptualize the critical nature of the work model as well as evaluate outcomes for the subjects and for the communities. A detailed evaluation of the outcomes of the program is provided elsewhere (Lavie-Ajayi & Krumer-Nevo, 2011). This article focuses on the work model – as conceptualized from the practice itself – emphasizing its difficulties and challenges, and the relationship between the program and the communities. Specifically, it is based on 94 repeated semi-structured, in-depth interviews with project youth workers, the project's management staff and key figures in the communities and from 10 participant observations on site and in training and management team meetings. Data was analyzed using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Interviews were analyzed during the data collection period, and the interview schedule was amended according to the emergence or nonoccurrence of themes. At the initial stage, all statements were categorized (open coding). Categories were then grouped into more abstract themes (axial coding). As analysis progressed, focus turned to those categories that appeared to be of greatest relevance to the developing theory (selective coding). Negative examples were noted and explored in further interviews, alongside confirmatory data. To strengthen the credibility of our analysis, an evaluation report was presented to the project's youth workers, management staff and funders at the end of each year, and feedback received from these principals was utilized in on-going project development (Lincoln, 1995). Feedback received from staff helped us shape the conceptualization of the program over time in a circular process of data collection, analysis, writing up and presentation in meetings, feedback from the staff and back to data collection. 3. The programs' theory of action The practice of Berosh Acher is the translation of critical theories into youth work practice. By critical theories, we refer to the commitment to ideas originating in a progressive political stance, one that aspires towards social transformation as a form of justice and emancipation (Gray & Webb, 2009), and in particular the work of Foucault (1984) and Bourdieu (1986, 1990). The objective of Berosh Acher is to challenge the status quo regarding marginalized youth by working on two different but compatible levels: the first is the improvement of the youth's psychosocial wellbeing; the other is the reformation of social institutions and structures. This can be seen in the program's practice in three dimensions: 1) the streets as a physical and political position; 2) youth workers' use of counter narrative; and 3) the role that youth workers take as agents of social capital. 1 These data are based on an evaluation of the program (Lavie-Ajayi & Krumer-Nevo, 2011).
“These youngsters feel disappointed and frustrated because of other services, school and so on, so when one arrives into the neighborhood, even if you have the best intentions, immediately they put a label on you and you cannot work. But when you arrive as yourself and you get into the neighborhood and you become part of the neighborhood and you become an address to turn to for solving problems or for help, it creates a connection that cross boundaries.” [Berosh Acher youth worker]
“It was a normal day, nothing special and we had nowhere to sit. We stood by the students' protest. The girls were hungry, and I told them to sit in the tent while I went and bring food that my mother prepared. Then a group of students arrived and asked the girls to leave, because “they don't fit the protest”. A big fight evolved, someone started calling them “sluts”, “thieves”, “they will take your laptop”, in one second it was ignited… I was so frustrated. First of all immediately I brought there all the girls, it was clear to me that I am
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
doing it on purpose, that I bring all the girls and we sit there. Then I called my supervisor and he brought two important people with him. The girls told them their stories, what they're doing there and how they were treated and how they cannot get away from the horrible situation and how no one sees them. They talked about the snowball in their lives…they made the two men cry.” This fight became a significant event in the life of Berosh Acher in this community. The youth worker exposed the attitudes of “Othering” toward the girls — the students' apprehension of being close to the girls, who themselves were in desperate need of housing but still were not perceived by the students as individuals who fit into the protest. The youth worker – who could herself fit into the protest, as one of the students – understood the hypocrisy of the situation and was able to give up her place in the confident sphere with the students to join “her girls” in a political act of making their voice heard and demanding their rights. Staying in the streets is not merely empathy with the girls; but is also a political and ideological stand.
3.2. Counter narrative in identity work and advocacy The story the youth workers maintain and which shapes their work is a counter narrative (Fine & Harris, 2001), placing marginalization in the context of oppression and economic, social and cultural inequality. Maintaining such a counter narrative is based on “critical consciousness” (conscientizacao) (Freire, 1993), i.e. the ability to perceive and interrogate the various forms of oppression that shape one's life, and to take collective action against the status quo. The youth workers use the counter narrative in two central modes: first, in direct interactions with the youth as a vehicle to support positive identity work; and second, in their encounters with other professionals in social system as advocates for the youth. Counter narrative as identity work: research shows that the context of oppression and inequality often causes psychological damage to the youth's self perception; challenging the sense of worth, dignity, respect, humanity, and an appreciation of one's own place in the world, it comprises pain and demoralization (Case & Hunter, 2012; Prilleltensky et al., 2008). This must be recognized by youth workers as the first step in encouraging personal development in the youth. Understanding what can be seen otherwise as behavioral, moral problems, or even sociopathology, as symptoms of social scars, expressions of resistance to inequality, requires the youth workers to replace the narrative of the youth deficit. We call the new counter narrative that the youth workers use, a narrative of worth (Case & Hunter, 2012). As will be exemplify later, the narrative of worth enables the contextualization of the youth behavior, and with it a deeper understanding of the youth, without romanticizing them. It is the basis for what Case and Hunter (2012, p. 266) call “direct relational transactions”, i.e. the processes by which direct and routine relational transactions such as communication created by the youth workers facilitate adaptive responding. This narrative shows to the youth that they deserve dignity and respect; that they are good, even though they may be involved in “bad” behavior. Promoting a counter narrative of this nature cannot come from a naïve stance. In fact, it relies upon distinct and ongoing efforts to allow the youth determine the depth and pace of their disclosure of their stories. This becomes crucial because other professionals in the community – social workers, teachers, or police – offer criminalizing information regarding the youth on a regular basis. In fact, the sharing of the hegemonic deficit narrative between professionals – even for supposedly laudable purposes such as improving the community's responses towards the youth – is an important element of the maintenance of the hegemonic narrative. Thus, in order to hold the counter narrative of worth, youth workers should explicitly avoid the deficit narrative.
1701
This practice is reflected in the following discussion held in one of the program's training days between a youth worker and the program's supervisor: Youth worker: “There is a young person I was supposed to escort to court to close an old case. We were on the right track with him, he progressed, but then he disappeared. The day before the sitting, I found out that he was under house arrest because a new record was open against him for drugs and theft. I don't necessarily know everything he does in the afternoons. He tells me that the drugs they found are not his (…) I received information from other sources and I realize his face is changing [for me] I don't know this level of sophistication, like a portrait of a criminal I didn't see. I was in a dilemma whether to confront him with this information, if so then what next?”Supervisor: “The only appropriate way is to say ‘I am ready to join you to a process of getting to know you in which different sides of your personality will come out, even if those were not expressed until now’. To make it easier for you and him, you should not directly ask questions related to delinquency, because these questions present you with a dilemma, what to do with this information. You want to allow them to tell a different story about themselves. Their delinquency story is narrated by them, by the police, by the society, by their parents. You should allow them to start create themselves a different story that stands as an alternative to the story of criminality. These stories can exist together. I can be criminal and other things as well.” Avoiding the narrative of criminality is the first step in developing a narrative of worth. It must be complemented by a new dialog regarding aspects of the youth's reality and inner life that are not discussed in the narrative of deficit. These new aspects might include experiences of oppression that the youth have faced and their coping with these experiences (Watts et al., 1999), fears and scars, and their hopes and wishes for the future. The narrative of worth should not ignore the aspects of their behavior that damage both themselves and others, but rather seek to incorporate these in a complex story using a new and contextualized perspective. The struggle of a youth worker with the practice of the narrative of worth is illustrated in the coming example: Youth worker: “There is a new group, they're not in real risk yet, one of them is always checking my boundaries. He stole a bottle of cocacola form the shop where I work. They caught him but let him go. I feel it was kind of defiance against me because it's the first time he did such a thing. I wanted to make a confrontation with him, and tell him that he did it because he wants me to be there for him, and that he doesn't have to do it, because I'll be there for him as much as he wants. How can I frighten him that he won't escalate his behavior?”Supervisor: “You have to ask yourself how to escape a predictable situation. For example go and tell him: ‘by the way, I already paid for that bottle of Coca, take it.’ If you do such a thing it's like you're telling him, I'm willing to be in a different kind of dialog with you. The question is what are you ready to do in this relationship? What kind of commitment you're willing to take upon yourself? We start to flourish as professionals when we know our commitment… the professional solution is to be a mirror that reflects value. You need to find yourself in a place that reflects value not criminality.” The narrative of worth functions as a social support for the youth, challenging the negative stereotypes regarding the internalized identities, according to which they are immanently and totally bad, allowing them to envision and craft positive and self-affirming personal identities. Counter narrative as advocacy: The narrative of worth is used by the youth workers not only in their transactions with the youth, but also in formal and informal discussions with other professionals. We see these encounters as acts of advocacy; aiming to load the discursive
1702
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
space given to the youth with positive meanings and to contribute to discursive social change as an end goal. Berosh Acher's youth workers understand their role as active advocators for their clientele, bringing their narrative to the different institutional forums in which decisions regarding their future are determined. The youth workers suggest alternative ways of working with the young people, and open new opportunities for them. In this regard, they perceive professionals in social institutions as holders of the deficit hegemonic narrative, and aim to help these symbols of authority transform their narrative as a means to enlist them to work for the youth. This can be done by influencing teachers, policemen, social workers or judges in the court system. “Pedagogical meetings in school are closed meetings, it's only the teachers and the principal of the school. Yesterday I was in one of these meetings. I wanted to be there because I knew that at the moment that one of the names of my youth will come up they will say things, and I wanted to give the other side of the child. I told the principal that I want to be there. And I said what I had to say; because I know these children's real life…they were not used to hearing these things from the field, from the real place.” The aim of the youth workers is to share the counter narrative of critical moments in the youth's lives with engaged professionals. This is not only on behalf of the subjects discussed, but is also as an educational and transformative endeavor intended to engender a social discursive change in the local context of the community. This hints at the complex and challenging role of the youth workers in comparison with other professionals. As described earlier, the youth workers tend to create a distance from other professionals, in order to avoid their narrative and negative representations of the youth. Yet, later they attempt to close this gap in order to prompt the professionals to question their own narrative and to explore the counter narrative as legitimate and the basis for further praxis. 3.3. Youth workers as social capital agents Youth need social and institutional support, socially organized activities and mentor relationships in order to mature sufficiently to meet the challenges posed by adulthood (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Connections between adults and youth shaped through organized youth programs can serve to enhance the social capital of young people, in the sense of relationships that provide access to potentially beneficial resources. These resources include the information, support and encouragement that expose the youth to the adult world in an empowering way (Zeldin, Christens, & Powers, 2012). Discussions about social capital tend to focus on socializing youth into the status quo, around current institutions and structures. However, when adopting a critical perspective, enhancing social capital is based on decoding the system, a sociological analysis of the community resources and its unequal distribution. Based on the acknowledgment of the dependency of oneself on her own privileged social capital, thus it takes the form of working against the status quo — that is to say, creating access to opportunities and resources not readily available in the existing social sphere for marginalized youth, because of the relative weakness of the social capital possessed by parents and other adult figures in marginalized communities. It is also an analysis of the “actors and organizations that may not have an empowerment agenda and any particular commitment to low-status youth” (Stanton-Salazar, 2011: p.1092). Understanding the importance of social capital the youth workers take the role of 'institutional agents', which refers according to Stanton-Salazar (2011), individuals with high-status hierarchical positions who transmit, or negotiate the transmission of highly valued resources, opportunities, privileges, or services to low status adolescents. By connecting low status youth to high valued social capital, these agents work in opposition to stratification forces in society.
Although the social status of the youth workers of Berosh Acher is higher than that of the youth, they may not be treated as “individuals with high-status hierarchical positions”. Since they lack formal power in the institutions they wish to influence, they have to create a large and diverse professional support network with key allies across different institutions. In this process their close relationship with the youth helps them, gradually, sometimes slowly, to gain the trust of professionals and to gain the informal status of experts themselves. We term their role agents of social capital as an extension of the term institutional agents which is used by Stanton-Salazar (2011). Their role as agents of social capital is dual: They work simultaneously to make available for the youth highly valued resources, opportunities, privileges and services; and to develop in the youth the knowledge and coping strategies needed to expand their access to institutional resources. In this regard they work both to empower the youth and to empower the professionals and democratize the system. As described by one youth worker: “Many youngsters do not understand the police. They do not understand how they need to behave and what they need to do in order to work through different issues relating to their getting into troubles. So in our relationship with them and in our work we try to explain the bigger picture to them, i.e. what is the role of the probation officer, what is the role of the lawyer and what the police wants from them. Because no one explains to them how to behave and what they should do. On the other hand we also try to be in touch with the authorities to pass the kids' wishes and to highlight the kid's rights, the things he deserves, to put the focus on the child (…) to talk with the probation officer and to convince him to write a proper memorandum which can change his destiny, rather than going to jail he can go to Malkishua [Drug Rehabilitation Center] or a different place that will give him a better future”. In this role, youth workers adopt a multi-faceted role, incorporating the roles of advocates and coordinators, and providing knowledge needed to navigate the system, a role which Stanton-Salazar (2011) names knowledge agent. As one youth worker described: “We created a network that encompasses everyone, we are in touch with probation officers, lawyers, the children's parent, the municipality, welfare services and other services that surround the youngster in an attempt to build a plan that can escort him/her. Each youngster is a different story”. When the youth workers succeed in attaining the status of experts, they can lobby not only for the particular needs of the individuals they work with, but also for the needs of other marginalized youth. In these cases, they may be involved in negotiating introductions and agreements between the various parties that control resources, for the benefit of the youth. This is well described by one welfare officer who talked about the work of ‘Berosh Acher’: It is important to highlight that ‘Berosh Acher’ was the main trigger to facilitate the understanding that it is not enough to find the young women and build a relationship of trust with them, the understanding that there is a need to create resources to address the need of young women at extreme risk. ‘Berosh Acher’ also promoted working meeting to think together on the kinds of resources needed. Our data suggests that even though the youth workers do not have high status, authority or access to resources, they are able to work to enhance the youth's social capital and to transform, at least at a local level, social institutions and structures in favor of the youth. 4. Discussion This paper offers a theory-based practice model for critical youth work. It is grounded in the documentation, conceptualization and
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
evaluation of an intervention program with marginalized youth. Corroborating existing literature (Coussée, 2008; Crimmens et al., 2004; Jeffs & Smith, 2002; Johnston et al., 2000), this study finds that street-based youth work, which aims to enhance social justice based on critical approach, can reach marginalized youth, and can work together with them and their communities to diminish social exclusion and expand the range of opportunities available to them. The model described in this article translates critical theories into youth work practice. As shown in this article, it has unique importance for interventions aimed at marginalized youth with high level of involvement in behaviors that potentially place them “at risk”, who are not capable, or do not want to be treated in a more formal setting. The biggest barrier for implementation of this approach is the neoliberal standpoint and functionalist perspective, often held by the establishment, that see the main function of youth work to control, monitor and restrain the problems of youth. The critical youth workers who aim to challenge the basis from which these problems arise rather than restrains the “problematic youth” is under a lot of pressure (Kulisa, 2009). Holding a critical position means being “willing to disembed themselves from the reproductive practices of their institution or environment” (Stanton-Salazar, 2011; p. 1090). Having “a different mindset” cannot be enough for this challenge. Rather, there is a need for professionals to position themselves differently within the establishment. This position often marginalizes the youth workers themselves, as they are in the difficult position of being at the very same time both within and in opposition to the established institutions and structures. We will conclude by highlighting some of the links between the practice and poststructuralist theories. The first dimension of the model focuses on the streets as a physical and political place of critical youth work. Looking at this principal of practice through Bourdieu's (1990) concepts of habitus and the field, working with young people inside an office means asking them to enter a space ruled by hegemonic, bureaucratic establishment. In the office their habitus marks them as others, and is the target of correctional efforts. However, choosing the streets as the main space in which relationship are developed and youth work occurs highlights its potential to change the hegemonic power relations and challenge processes of stigma and Othering. Working in the streets enables the youth workers to learn the habitus of the youth, to acknowledge the ways that oppression influences their everyday experiences and to stand by them. The second dimension of the model – narrative work – is informed by Foucault's (1984) concepts of discourse and knowledge/power. We argue that narratives affect both the way young people see themselves and the way the establishment, through different service providers, see young people and makes sense of their behavior (Besley, 2001). We suggest that the narratives held by both sides are often draws upon the hegemonic deficit narrative that see the young people as the problem and aim to fix them. Foucault's (1984) work highlights that by problematizing present discourses and narratives, one can challenge existing functions of power/knowledge, and criticizes the working of institutions. A principal political task is to criticize the functioning of institutions, especially those that present as neutral (Besley, 2001). The problematization of the hegemonic deficit narrative should be carried out on two levels: firstly in direct interactions with the youth as a vehicle to support positive identity work (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2002) and increase sociopolitical development (Diemer & Hsieh, 2008); secondly, in encounters with other professionals in the social system in order to deconstruct the hegemonic professional narrative and to advocate for the youth. Interventions that support the wellbeing of marginalized youth must combine the interpersonal with the macro/collective, and must not ignore contextual factors of power and ecological influence (Prilleltensky et al., 2008). The third dimension focuses on expanding social capital. Based on Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction (Bourdieu, 1986), StantonSalazar (2011) defines social capital in terms of key resources and
1703
institutional support. The weakness of the social capital held by parents and other adult figures in marginalized communities reproduces existing patterns of inequality (Sharland, 2006). The model presented in this article expands on Stanton-Salazar's (2011) conceptualization to define critical youth workers as social capital agents. This role is multifaceted, incorporating the roles of advocates, knowledge-agents and coordinators. It demands creativity and finding one's own way through complex unexpected situations. There are a number of limitations to this study. First our discussion in embedded in the Israeli context. Despite the uniqueness of this context, the literature from around the world highlights similar difficulties, challenges and successes. Second, beside the effectiveness of the program presented in this article in terms of reaching out to marginalized youth, further research is needed in order to evaluate the potential of the model for reducing risk behaviors and changing social and educational services. Yet, this article proposes a theory based practice model that expands the vocabulary of critical youth work by emphasizing the importance of a political and ideological stand against the othering of marginalized youth. References Benson, P. L., & Saito, R. N. (2001). The scientific foundations of youth development. In P. L. Benson, & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development (pp. 135–154). US: Springer. Bentley, T., & Gurumurthy, R. (1999). Destination unknown: engaging with the problems of marginalized youth. London: Demos. Besley, T. (2001). Foucauldian influences in narrative therapy: An approach for schools. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 72–94. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 46–58). New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Case, S. (2006). Young people ‘at risk’ of what? Challenging risk-focused early intervention as crime prevention. Youth Justice, 6, 171–179. Case, A.D., & Hunter, C. D. (2012). Counterspaces: a unit of analysis for understanding the role of settings in marginalized individuals' adaptive responses to oppression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 257–270. Cohen-Navot, M., Levi, D., & Gilad, S. (2008). Opportunities for NGO involvement in the education of disadvantaged children and youth in Israel: Future directions for youth renewal fund. Research report. Israel: Jerusalem: Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. Cooper, C. (2012). Imagining ‘radical’ youth work possibilities—challenging the ‘symbolic violence’ within the mainstream tradition in contemporary state-led youth work practice in England. Journal of Youth Studies, 15, 53–71. Coussée, F. (2008). A century of youth work policy. Gent: Academia Press. Coussée, F., Roets, G., & De Bie, M. (2009). Empowering the powerful: Challenging hidden processes of marginalization in youth work policy and practice in Belgium. Critical Social Policy, 29, 421–442. Crimmens, D., Factor, F., Jeffs, T., Pitts, J., Pugh, C., Spence, J., et al. (2004). Reaching socially excluded young people: A national study of street-based youth work. Discussion Paper. Leicester: National Youth Agency. Davies, B. (2005). Youth work: A manifesto for our times. Youth and Policy, 88(5), 7–27. Deutsch, M. (2011). Justice and conflict. In P. T. Coleman (Ed.), Conflict, interdependence, and justice: The intellectual legacy of Morton Deutsch (pp. 95–118). New York: Springer New York. Diemer, M.A., & Hsieh, C. (2008). Sociopolitical development and vocational expectations among lower socioeconomic status adolescents of color. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 257–269. Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A.M. (1997). Primary prevention programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115–152. Ferrer-Wreder, L., Lorente, C., Kurtines, W., Briones, E., Bussell, J., Berman, S., et al. (2002). Promoting identity development in marginalized youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 168–189. Fine, M., & Harris, A. (2001). Under the covers: Theorising the politics of counter stories (no. 4). : Lawrence & Wishart. Fine, M., Stoudt, B. G., Fox, M., & Santos, M. (2010). The uneven distribution of social suffering: Documenting the social health consequences of neo-liberal social policy on marginalized youth. The European Health Psychologist, 12, 30–35. Foucault, M. (1984). Polemics, politics and problematisation. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed.)New York: Continuum. Gray, M., & Webb, S. A. (2009). Critical social work. In M. Gray, & S. A. Webb (Eds.), Social work: Theories and methods (pp. 76–86). Los Angeles and London: Sage. Isralowitz, R., Shpiegel, S., Reznik, A., & Laytin, A. (2009). Ethiopian youth in Israel: Gender-related alcohol use and related problem behavior. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 16, 273–278. Jeffs, T., & Smith, M. (2002). Individualisation and youth work. Youth and Policy, 76, 39–65. Johnson, P., & Lawler, S. (2005). Coming home to love and class. Sociological Research Online, 10(3) (available online at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/3/johnson.html (accessed 1 October 2012)).
1704
M. Lavie-Ajayi, M. Krumer-Nevo / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 1698–1704
Johnston, L., MacDonald, R., Mason, P., Ridley, L., & Webster, C. (2000). Snakes and ladders: Young people, transitions and social exclusion. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Karabanow, J. M., & Rains, P. (1997). Structure versus caring: discrepant perspectives in a shelter for street kids. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 301–321. Kulisa, J. (2009). Critical' youth work practice in a ‘functionalist’ environment: a Western Australian case study. The Journal of Youth Work, 3, 27–42. Lahav, H. (1993). Development of services for detached youth in the educational system in Israel between 1935–1990. Social and Youth Administration. available online at. http://hinuch.education.gov.il/i01net/I01TeurParit.aspx?SemelParit=94078 ((accessed 1 October, 2012) (Hebrew)). Lavie-Ajayi, M., & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2011). Nirim partnership for youth at extreme risk. Report presented to JDC and the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. Levy, A. (2003). From vision to reality-process for building a professional vision for youth services in the Ministry of Labor and Welfare. Meeting for Education-Social Work 17 (pp. 107–129) (Hebrew). Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275–289. Malka, M., & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2013). Youth workers in Israel. In Z. Valden (Ed.), Youth in Israel. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press (Hebrew) (in press). McWhirter, J. J., McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, R. J. (2007). At risk youth: A comprehensive response for youth workers, teachers, psychologists, and human service professionals (5th ed.)Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Pitts, J. (2001). Young people talking about social inclusion: a three nation study — part II. Social Work in Europe, 8, 29–39. Prilleltensky, I., Prilleltensky, O., & Voorhee, C. (2008). Psychopolitical validity in the helping professions: Applications to research, interventions, case conceptualization, and therapy. In C. I. Cohen, & S. Timimi (Eds.), Liberatory psychiatry: Philosophy, politics and mental health (pp. 105–130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schmid, H. (2006). Report of a national committee to examine the status of children and youth at risk and distress. Israel: Israeli Government (Hebrew).
Schmid, H. (2007). Children and youth at risk in Israel: Findings and recommendations to improve their well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1114–1128. Scottish Government (2010). More choices, more chances. Edinburgh: Stationery Office. Sharland, E. (2006). Young people, risk taking and risk making: some thoughts for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 247–265. Sherer, M. (1989). Youth work professionalization in Israel: promises and their realization. Society and Welfare, 9, 240–259 (Hebrew). Spence, J. (2004). Targeting, accountability and youth work practice. Practice, 16, 261–272. Spring, J. (2010). American education. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43, 1066–1109. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.)California: Sage. Te Riele, K. (2006). Youth ‘at risk’: further marginalizing the marginalized? Journal of Education Policy, 21, 129–145. Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779–792. Watts, R. J., Griffith, D.M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression: Theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255–271. Whatman, J., Schagen, S., Vaughan, K., & Lander, J. (2010). Engaging young people/young adults in literacy, language and numeracy skill development: A literature review. New Zealand: Department of Labour. World Bank (2008). Supporting youth at risk: A policy toolkit for middle-income countries. USA: The World Bank. Wyn, J., & White, R. (1997). Rethinking youth. Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd. Zeldin, S., Christens, B.D., & Powers, J. L. (2012). The psychology and practice of youth– adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–13.